OF 


THE  M^M°¥^^%&%'^ 


^ 


^' 


^6re;5TI0I]. 


^ 


Gladstone, 

F)UXLEY, 

fflilLLBI^, 


I^EVILLE, 

LlINiITON. 


New  York 


^^1>^'■4-*^^t^/^HE  TRUTH  SEEKER  CO. 
Pifi*    ^'ij,-''^''^^         3.  Clinton  Placf 


<^-  ■        '*, 


BS  651  .073 

The  order  of  creation 


MAR  26  1910 


THE 


A'.. 


/CAL  Sei 


'>\V 


cV" 


^V 


ORDER  OF  CREATION 


CONFLICT  BETWEEN   GENESIS 
AND  GEOLOGY. 


A  Controversy  between  the 
HoN.W. E.GLADSTONE,    Prof.  MAX  MULLER, 
Prof.  T.  H.  HUXLEY, '        M.  REVILLE, 
E.   LYNN   LINTON. 


New  York : 

THE  TRUTH    SEEKER   COMPANY, 

33  Clinton  Place. 


CONTENTS. 


Dawn  of  Creation  and  of  Worship.     By  Hon.  W.  E. 

^Gladstone,  .  .  .  .  .  5 

The  Interpreters  ot  Genesis  jmd  the  Interpreters  of 

Nature.     By  Prof.  T.  H.  Huxley,      .  .  43 

V 

Postscript  to  Solar  Myths.     By  Prof.  Max  MUllee,        64 

Proem  to  Genesis  :  A  Plea  for  a  Fair  Trial.     By  Hon. 

W.  E.  Gladstone,  .  .  .  .70 

"  Dawn  of  Creation" — An  Answer  to  Mr.  Gladstone. 

By  Albert  Reville,  D.D.,     .  .  .  107 

Mr.  Gladstone  and  Genesis.     By  Prof.  T.  H.  Huxley,       134 

A  Protest  and  a  Plea.     By  Mrs.  E.  Lynn  Linton,        .      IGl 


/ 


THE  ORDER  OF  CREATION. 


BAWJV  OF  CREATION  AND   OF  WORSHIP. 

BY    W.    E.    GLADSTONE. 

Among  recent  works  on  the  origin  and  history  of 
rehgions  by  distinguished  authors,  a  somewhat  con- 
spicuous place  may  be  awarded  to  the  Prol'egoynhies 
de  V  Uistorie  cles  Religions,  by  Dr.  Reville,  profes- 
sor in  the  College  of  France,  and  Hibbert  Lectiu'er 
in  1884.  The  volume  has  been  translated  into 
EngHsh  by  IVlr.  Squh-e,  and  the  translation*  comes 
forth  with  all  the  advantage,  and  it  is  great,  which 
can  be  conferred  by  an  introduction  from  the  pen  of 
Professor  Max  Miiller.  It  apjDears,  if  I  may  presume 
to  speak  of  it,  to  be  characterized,  among  other 
merits,  by  marked  ingenuity  and  acuteness,  breadth 
of  field,  great  felicity  of  phrase,  evident  candor  of  in- 
tention, and  abundant  courtesy. 

Whether  its  contents  are  properly  placed  as  prol- 
egomena may  at  once  be  questioned ;  for  sui'ely  the 
proper  office  of  prolegomena  is  to  present  prelimi- 
naries, and  not  results.  Such  is  not,  however,  the  aim 
of  this  work.  It  starts  from  assuming  the  subject- 
ive origin  of  all  religions,  which  are  viewed  as  so 

*In  his  Prolegomena  to  the  History  of  Religions.  My  refer- 
ences throughout  are  to  the  translation  by  Mr.  Squire  (Wil- 
liams &  Norgate,  1884). 


THE  OEDEK  OF  CREATION. 


many  answers  to  the  call  of  a  strong  human  appetite 
for  that  kind  of  food,  and  ai'e  examined  as  the  several 
varieties  of  one  and  the  same  species.  The  conclusions 
of  opiDOsing  inquirers,  however,  are  not  left  to  be  con- 
futed by  a  collection  of  facts  and  testimonies  drawn 
from  historical  investigation,  but  are  thi'ust  out  of  the 
way  beforehand  in  the  preface  (for,  after  all,  "prolegom- 
ena can  be  nothing  but  a  less  homely  phrase  for  a  pref- 
ace). These  inquirers  are  so  many  pretenders,  who 
have  obstructed  the  passage  of  the  rightful  heir  to 
his  throne,  and  they  ai'e  to  be  put  summarily  out  of 
the  way  as  disturbers  of  the  public  peace.  The 
method  piu'sued  appears  to  be  not  to  allow  the  facts 
and  arguments  to  dispose  of  them,  but  to  condemn 
them  before  the  cause  is  heard.  I  do  not  know  how 
to  reconcile  this  method  vdth  Dr.  Reville's  declai'a- 
tion  that  he  aims  at  proceeding  in  a  "strictly  scientific 
spirit."  It  might  be  held  that  such  a  sj^irit  required 
the  regular  presentation  of  the  evidence  before  the 
delivery  of  the  verdict  upon  it.  In  any  case  I  vent- 
ure to  observe  that  these  are  not  truly  prolego)nefia, 
but  epilegomena  to  a  history  of  rehgions  not  yet 
placed  before  us. 

The  first  enemy  whom  Dr.  Reville  dispatches  is 
M.  de  Bonald,  as  the  champion  of  the  doctrine  that 
"in  the  very  beginning  of  the  human  race  the  creat- 
ive power  revealed  to  the  first  men  by  supei'natiu-al 
means  the  essential  principles  of  religious  truth," 
together  with  "  language  and  even  the  art  of  writing  " 
(pp.  35,  36).    ■ 

In  passing,  Dr.  Reville  observes  that  "therehgious 
schools,  which  maintain  the  truth  of  a  primitive 
revelation,  are  guided  by  a  very  evident  theological 
interest"    (Ibid.);    the    Protestant,    to    fortify    the 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP.  ( 

authority  of  the  Bible ;  and  the  Roman  Catholic,  to 
j)rop  the  infallibility  of  the  church. 

It  is  doubtless  true  that  the  doctrine  of  a  prim- 
itive revelation  tends  to  fortify  the  authority  of  re- 
ligion. But  is  it  not  equally  true,  and  equally 
obvious,  that  the  denial  of  a  primitive  revelation  tends 
to  undermine  if?  and,  if  so,  might  it  not  be  retorted 
upon  the  school  of  Dr.  Reville  that  the  schools  which 
deny  a  primitive  revelation  are  guided  by  a  very  evi- 
dent anti-theological  interests 

Against  this  antagonist  Dr.  Reville  observes,  inter 
alia  (p.  37),  that  an  appeal  to  the  supernatui-al  is^jjer 
se  inadmissible ;  that  a  divine  revelation,  containing 
the  subhme  doctrines  of  the  piu'est  inspii'ation,  given 
to  man  at  an  age  indefinitely  remote,  and  in  a  state 
of  "absolute  ignorance,"  is  '^'infinitely  hard"  to  im- 
agine ;  that  it  is  not  favored  by  analogy ;  and  that  it 
contradicts  all  that  we  know  of  prehistoric  man  (p. 
40).  Thus  far  it  might  perhaps  be  contended  in  re- 
ply, (1)  that  the  preliminary  objection  to  the  super- 
natural is  a  pure  petitio  jyrincipii,  and  wholly  re- 
pugnant to  "scientific  method;"  (2)  that  it  is  not 
inconceivable  that  revelation  might  be  indefinitely 
graduated,  as  well  as  human  knowledge  and  condi- 
tion ;  (3)  that  it  is  in  no  way  repugnant  to  analogy,  if 
the  .greatest  master  of  analogy.  Bishop  Butler 
{Analogy,  P.  II.  ch.  ii.  §  2)  may  be  heard  upon 
the  subject ;  and  (4)  that  our  earliest  information 
about  the  races  from  which  we  are  least  remote, 
Ai-yan,  Semitic,  Accadian,  or  Egyptian,  offers  no  con- 
tradiction and  no  obstacle  to  the  idea  of  their  having 
received,  or  inherited,  portions  of  some  knowledge 
divinely  revealed. 

But  I  do  not  now  enter  upon  these  topics,  as  I 


8  THE    ORDER    OF    CREATION. 

have  a  more  immediate  and  defined  concern  with  the 
work  of  Dr.  Reville. 

It  only  came  within  the  last  few  months  to  my 
knowledge  that,  at  a  period  when  my  cares  and 
labors  of  a  distinct  order  were  much  too  absorbing 
to  allow  of  any  attention  to  archeological  history, 
Dr.  Reville  had  done  me  the  honor  to  select  me  as 
the  representative  of  those  writers  who  find  warrant 
for  the  assertion  of  a  primitive  revelation  in  the  tes- 
timony of  the  holy  scriptui'es. 

This  is  a  distinction  which  I  do  not  at  all  deserve ; 
first,  because  Dr.  Reville  might  have  placed  in  the 
field  champions  much  more  competent  and  learned* 
than  myself;  secondly,  because  I  have  never  at- 
tempted to  give  the  proof  of  such  a  warrant.  I 
have  never  written  exprqfesso  on  the  subject  of  it; 
but  it  is  true  that  in  a  work  published  nearly  thirty 
years  ago,  when  destructive  criticism  was  less  ad- 
vanced than  it  is  now,  I  assumed  it  as  a  thing  gener- 
ally received,  at  least  in  this  country.  Upon  some  of 
the  points  which  group  themselves  round  that  as- 
sumption my  views,  like  those  of  many  other  inquir- 
ers, have  been  stated  more  crudely  at  an  early,  and 
more  matui'ely  at  more  than  one  later  period.  I 
admit  that  variation  or  develoj)ment  imposes  a 
hardship  upon  critics,  notwithstanding  all  their 
desii'e  to  be  just;  especially,  may  I  say,  upon  such 
critics  as,  traversing  ground  of  almost  boundless  ex- 
tent, can  hardly,  except  in  the  rarest  cases,  be  mi- 
nutely and  closely  acquainted  with  every  portion 
of  it. 


*  I  will  only  name  one  of  the  most  recent,  Dr.  Reusch,  the 
author  of  "  Bibel  undNatur"  (Bonn,  1876). 


DA'WN    OF    CREATION    AND    OF    WORSHIP.  9 

I  also  admit  to  Dr.  Keville,  and  indeed  I  contend 
by  his  side,  that  in  a  historical  inquu-y  the  author- 
ity of  scripture  cannot  be  alleged  in  proof  of  the  ex- 
istence of  a  primitive  revelation.  So  to  allege  it  is  a 
preliminary  assumption  of  the  supernatiu'al,  and  is, 
in  my  view,  a  manifest  departiu'e  from  the  laws  of 
"  scientific"  procedure;  as  palpable  a  departure,  may 
I  ventvu'e  to  say,  as  that  jDreliminary  exclusion  of  the 
supernatiu-al  which  I  have  already  presumed  to 
notice.  My  own  offense,  if  it  be  one,  was  of  another 
character;  and  was  committed  in  the  early  days  of 
Homeric  study,  when  my  eyes,  perhaps,  were  dazzled 
with  the  amazing  richness  and  variety  of  the  results 
which  reward  all  close  investigation  of  the  text  of 
Homer,  so  that  objects  were  blui'red  for  a  time  in  my 
view,  which  soon  came  to  stand  more  clear  before  me. 

I  had  better,  perhaj)s,  state  at  once  what  my  con- 
tention really  is.  It  is,  first,  that  many  important 
pictures  drawn  and  indications  given  in  the  Homeric 
poems  supply  evidence  that  cannot  be  confuted  not 
only  of  an  ideal,  but  of  a  historical  relationship  to 
the  Hebrew  traditions,  (1)  and  mainly,  as  they  are 
recorded  in  the  book  of  Genesis;  (2)  as  less  authen- 
tically to  be  gathered  from  the  later  Hebrew  learn- 
ing ;  (3)  as  illustrated  from  extraneous  soiu'ces.  Sec- 
ondly, any  attempt  to  expound  the  Olympian  myth- 
ology of  Homer  by  simple  reference  to  a  solar  theory, 
or  even  to  nature- worship  in  a  larger  sense,  is  simply 
a  plea  for  a  verdict  against  the  evidence.  It  is  also 
true  that  I  have  an  imshaken  belief  in  a  divine  revela- 
tion, not  resting  on  assumption,  but  made  obligatory 
upon  me  by  reason.  But  I  hold  the  last  of  these 
convictions  entirely  apart  from  the  others,  and  I  de- 
rived the  first  and  second  not  from  preconception,  of 


10  THE    ORDER    OF    CREATION. 

which  I  had  not  a  grain,  but  from  the  poems  them- 
selves, as  purely  as  I  derived  my  knovs^ledge  of  the 
Pelopomiesian  war  from  Thucydides,  or  his  inter- 
preters. 

The  great  importance  of  this  contention  I  do  not 
deny.  I  have  produced  in  its  favor  a  great  mass  of 
evidence,  which,  as  far  as  I  have  seen,  there  has  been 
no  serious  endeavor,  if,  indeed,  any  endeavor,  to  repel. 
Dr.  Reville  observes  that  my  views  have  been  sub- 
jected to  "  very  profound  criticism  "  by  Sir  G.  Cox, 
in  his  learned  work  on  Aryan  mythology  (p.  41). 
That  is,  indeed,  a  very  able  criticism,  but  it  is  ad- 
dressed entii'ely  to  the  statements  of  my  earliest 
Homeric  work.*  Now,  apart  from  the  question 
whether  those  statements  have  been  rightly  under- 
stood (which  I  cannot  admit),  that  which  he  attacks 
is  beyond  and  outside  of  the  proposition  which  I  have 
given  above.  Sir  G.  Cox  has  not  attempted  to  de- 
cide the  question  whether  there  was  a  primitive  reve- 
lation, or  whether  it  may  be  traced  in  Homer.  And  I 
may  say  that  I  am  myself  so  little  satisfied  with  the 
precise  form  in  which  my  general  conclusions  were 
originally  clothed  that  I  have  not  reprinted  and  shall 
not  reprint  the  work,  which  has  become  very  rare, 
only  appearing  now  and  then  in  some  catalogue,  and 
at  a  high  price.  When  there  are  representatives,  liv- 
ing and  awake,  why  disturb  the  ashes  of  the  dead  ? 
In  later  works,  reaching  from  1865  to  1875,t  I  have 


*  "  Studies  on  Homer  and  the  Homeric  Age.  3  vols.  Ox- 
ford, 1858. 

t  ' '  Address  to  the  University  of  Edinburgh  "  (Murray, 
1865);  "Juventus  Mimdi "  (Macmillan,  1868) ;  "Primer  of 
Homer"  (Macmillan,  1878);  especially  see  Preface  to  "Ju- 
ventus Mundi,"  p.  I. 


DAWN   OF    CREATION   AND    OF    WORSHIP.  11 

confessed  to  the  modification  of  my  results,  and  have 
stated  the  case  in  terms  ■which  appear  to  me,  using 
the  common  phrase,  to  be  those  yielded  by  the  legit- 
imate study  of  comparative  religion.  But  v^rhy  should 
those  who  think  it  a  sound  method  of  comparative 
religion  to  match  together  the  Vedas,  the  Norse 
legends,  and  the  Egyptian  remains,  think  it  to  be  no 
process  of  comparative  religion  to  bring  together, 
not  vaguely  and  loosely,  but  in  seai'ching  detail,  cer- 
tain traditions  of  the  book  of  Genesis  and  those  re- 
corded in  the  Homeric  Poems,  and  to  argue  that  their 
resemblances  may  afford  proof  of  a  common  origin, 
without  any  anticipatory  assumption  as  to  what  that 
origin  may  be  ? 

It  will  hardly  excite  surprise,  after  what  has  now 
been  written,  when  I  say  I  am  imable  to  accept  as 
mine  any  one  of  the  propositions  which  Dr.  Reville  (pp. 
41-2)  affiliates  to  me.  (1)  I  do  not  hold  that  there 
was  a  "  systematic  "  or  wilful  corruption  of  a  primitive 
rehgion.  (2)  I  do  not  hold  that  all  the  mythologies 
are  due  to  any  such  con-uption,  systematic  or  other- 
wise. (3)  I  do  not  hold  that  no  part  of  them  sprang 
out  of  the  deification  of  natxu-al  facts.  (4)  I  do  not 
hold  that  the  ideas  conveyed  in  the  book  of  Genesis, 
or  in  any  Hebrew  tradition,  were  developed  in  the 
form  of  dogma,  as  is  said  by  Sir  G.  Cox,  or  in  "  six 
great  doctrines  "  as  is  conceived  by  Dr.  Keville ;  and 
(5)  I  am  so  far  from  ever  having  held  that  there  was 
a  "  primitive  orthodoxy  "  revealed  to  the  first  men 
(p.  43)  that  I  have  carefully  from  the  first  referred 
not  to  developed  doctrine,  but  to  rudimentary  indi- 
cations of  what  are  now  developed  and  established 
truths.  So  that,  although  Dr.  Reville  asks  me  for 
proof,  I  decline  to  supply  proofs  of  what  I  disbe- 


12 


THE    ORDER    OF    CREATION. 


lieve.  What  I  have  suppHed  proofs  of  is  the 
appearance  in  the  Poems  of  a  number  of  traits,  in- 
congruous in  various  degrees  with  their  immediate 
environment,  but  having  such  mai'ked  and  character- 
istic resemblances  to  the  Hebrew  tradition  as  to 
requii-e  of  us,  in  the  character  of  rational  inquirers, 
the  admission  of  a  common  origin,  just  as  the  mark- 
ings which  we  sometimes  notice  ujoon  the  coats  of 
horses  and  donkeys  are  held  to  requii'e  the  admission 
of  their  relationship  to  the  zebra. 

It  thus  ai)pears  that  Dr.  Eeville  has  discharged  his 
pistol  in  the  air,  for  my  Homeric  propositions  involve 
no  assumption  as  to  a  revelation  contained  in  the 
book  of  Genesis,  while  he  has  exprofesso  contested 
my  statements  of  a  historical  relationship  between 
some  traditions  of  that  book  and  those  of  the  Homeric 
poems.  But  I  will  now  briefly  examine  (1)  the  man- 
ner in  which  Dr.  Reville  handles  the  book  of  Genesis, 
and  (2)  the  manner  in  which  he  undertakes,  by  way 
of  specimen,  to  construe  the  mythology  of  Homer, 
and  enlist  it,  by  comparison,  in  the  support  of  his 
system  of  interpretation.  And  first  with  the  first- 
named  of  these  two  subjects. 

Entering  a  protest  against  assigning  to  the  book 
"  a  dictatorial  authority,"  that  is,  I  presume,  against 
its  containing  a  divine  revelation  to  anybody,  he 
passes  on  to  examine  its  contents.  It  contains,  he 
says,  scientific  errors,  of  which  (p.  42,  n.)  he  sj^ecifies 
three.  His  charges  are  that  (1)  it  speaks  of  the 
heaven  as  a  solid  vault ;  (2)  it  j)laces  the  creation  of 
the  stars  after  that  of  the  earth,  and  so  places  them 
solely  for  its  use;  (3)  it  introduces  the  vegetable 
kingdom  before  that  kingdom  could  be  subjected  to 
the  action  of  solar  light.     All  these  condemnations 


DAWN  OF  CEEATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP.         13 

are  quietly  enunciated  in  a  note,  as  if  they  were  sub- 
ject to  no  dispute.     Let  us  see. 

As  to  the  first :  if  our  scholars  are  right  ia  their 
judgment,  just  made  known  to  the  world  by  the 
recent  revision  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  "  firma- 
ment "  is,  in  the  Hebrew  original,  not  a  sohd  vault, 
but  an  expanse.  As  to  the  second  (a)  it  is  7iot  said 
in  the  sacred  text  that  the  stars  were  made  solely  for 
the  use  of  the  earth ;  {b)  it  is  true  that  no  other  use 
is  mentioned.  But  we  must  here  inquire  what  was 
the  purpose  of  the  narrative  ?  Not  to  rear  cosmic 
philosophers,  but  to  furnish  ordinary  men  with  some 
idea  of  what  the  Creator  had  done  in  the  way  of 
providing  for  them  a  home,  and  giving  them  a  place 
in  nature.  The  advantage  afforded  by  the  stars  to 
them  is  named  alone,  they  having  no  interest  in  any 
other  purpose  for  which  the  stars  may  exist. 

The  assertion  that  the  stars  ai'e  stated  to  have  been 
"  created  "  after  the  earth  is  more  serious.  But  here 
it  becomes  necessary  first  of  all  to  notice  the  recital 
in  this  part  of  the  indictment.  In  the  language  of 
Dr.  Reville,  the  book  speaks  of  the  creation  of  the 
stars  after  the  formation  of  the  earth.  Now,  curiously 
enough,  the  book  says  nothing  either  of  the  "  forma- 
tion" of  the  earth,  or  of  the  "  creation"  of  the  stars. 
It  says  in  its  first  line  that  "  iu  the  beginning  God 
created  the  heaven  and  the  eai'th."  It  says  f mother 
on  (Gen.  i,  16),  "  He  made  the  stars  also."  Can  it  be 
ui'ged  that  this  is  a  fanciful  distinction  between 
creating  on  the  one  hand,  and  making,  forming,  or 
fashioning  on  the  other "?  Dante  did  not  think  so,  for 
speaking  of  the  divine  will,  he  says : 

Cio  ch'  Ella  cria,  e  che  Natura  face. — Paradiso,  iii,  87. 


li  THE    OKDER    OF    CREATION. 

Luther  did  not  think  so,  for  he  uses  schuf  in  the  first 
verse,  and  machte  in  the  sixteenth.  The  Enghsh 
translators  and  theu'  revisers  did  not  think  so,  for 
they  use  the  words  "created"  and  "made"  in  the 
two  passages  respectively.  The  main  question,  how- 
ever, is  what  did  the  author  of  the  book  think,  and 
what  did  he  intend  to  convey  ?  The  LXX  drew  no 
distinction,  probably  for  the  simple  reason  that,  as 
the  idea  of  creation  proper  was  not  familial*  to  the 
Greeks,  their  language  conveyed  no  word  better  than 
poiein  to  express  it,  which  is  also  the  proper  word 
for  fashioning  or  making.  But  the  Hebrew,  it  seems, 
had  the  distinction,  and  by  the  writer  of  Genesis  i  it 
has  been  strictly,  to  Dr.  Reville  I  might  almost  say 
scientifically,  followed.  He  uses  the  word  "  created  " 
on  the  thi'ee  grand  occasions  (1)  of  the  beginning  of 
the  mighty  work  (v.  1) ;  (2)  of  the  beginning  of  ani- 
mal life  (v.  21)  "And  God  created  great  whales,"  and 
every  living  creatiu-e  that  peoples  the  waters ;  (3)  of 
the  yet  more  important  beginning  of  rational  and 
spuitual  life ;  "so  God  created  man  in  his  own 
image "  (v.  27).  In  every  other  instance  the  simple 
command  is  recited,  or  a  word  imiDlying  less  than 
creation  is  employed. 

From  this  very  marked  mode  of  use,  it  is  surely 
plain  that  a  mai'ked  distinction  of  sense  was  intended 
by  the  sacred  wiiter.  I  will  not  attempt  a  definition 
of  the  distinction  further  than  this,  that  the  one 
phrase  points  more  to  calling  into  a  separate  or  indi- 
vidual existence,  the  other  more  to  shaping  and 
fashioning  the  conditions  of  that  existence ;  the  one 
to  quid,  the  other  to  quale.  Our  earth,  created  in 
V.  1,  undergoes  structural  change,  different  arrange- 
ment of  material,  in  v.  9.  After  this,  and  in  the  fourth 


DAWN    OF    CREATION    AND    OF    WOESHIP  15 

day,  comes  not  the  original  creation,  but  the  location 
in  the  firmament  of  the  sun  and  the  moon.  On  their 
"  creation  "  nothing  particular  has  been  said  ;  for  no 
use,  palpable  to  man,  was  associated  with  it  before 
their  perfect  equipment.  Does  it  not  seem  allowable 
to  suppose  that  in  the  "heavens"*  (v.  1),  of  which 
after  the  first  outset  we  hear  no  more,  were  included 
the  heavenly  bodies  ?  In  any  case  what  is  afterwards 
conveyed  is  not  the  calling  into  existence  of  the  sun 
and  moon,  but  the  assignment  to  them  of  a  certain 
place  and  orbit  respectively,  with  a  light-giving 
power.  Is  there  the  smallest  inconsistency  in  a 
statement  which  j^laces  the  emergence  of  our  land, 
and  its  separation  from  the  sea,  and  the  commence- 
ment of  vegetable  life,  before  the  final  and  full 
concentration  of  light  upon  the  sun,  and  its  reflection 
on  the  moon  and  the  planets  ?  In  the  gradual  sever- 
ance of  other  elements  would  not  the  severance  of  the 
luminous  body,  or  force,  be  gradual  also  "?  And  why, 
let  me  ask  of  Dr.  Eeville,  as  there  would  plainly  be 
light  diffused  before  there  was  light  concentrated, 
why  may  not  that  light  diffused  have  been  sufficient 
for  the  purposes  of  vegetation  ?  There  was  soil,  there 
was  atmosphere,  there  was  moistui'e,  there  was  light. 
"What  more  could  be  requii-ed  ?  Need  we  go  beyond 
our  constant  experience  to  be  aware  that  the  process 
of  vegetation,  though  it  may  be  suspended,  is  not 
arrested,  when,  through  the  presence  of  cloud  and 


*In  our  translation,  and  in  the  recent  revision,  the  singular 
is  used.  But  we  are  assured  that  the  Hebrew  word  is  plural 
(Bishop  of  Winchester  on  Genesis  i,  1,  in  the  Speaker's  Bible). 
If  so  taken,  we  have  the  creation,  visible  to  us,  treated  con- 
jointly in  verses  1-5,  distributively  in  verses  6-19  ;  surely  a 
most  orderly  arrangement. 


16  THE    ORDER    OF    CREATION. 

vapor,  the  sun's  globe  becomes  to  us  invisible?  The 
same  observations  ajjply  to  the  Ught  of  the  planets  ; 
while  as  to  the  other  stars,  such  as  were  then  percep- 
tible to  the  human  eye,  we  know  nothing.  The 
planets,  being  luminous  bodies  only  through  the 
action  of  the  sun,  could  not  be  luminous  until  such  a 
degree  of  light,  or  of  light-force,  was  accumulated 
upon  or  in  the  sun,  as  to  make  them  luminous, 
instead  of  being 

silent  as  the  moon, 
When  she  deserts  the  night 
Hid  in  her  vacant  interlunar  cave. 

Is  it  not  then  the  fact,  thus  far,  that  the  impeachment 
of  the  book  has  fallen  to  the  ground  ?  There  remains 
to  add  only  one  remark,  the  propriety  of  which  is,  I 
think,-  indisputable.  Easy  comjDrehension  and  im- 
pressive force  are  the  objects  to  be  aimed  at  in  a 
composition  at  once  popular  and  summary ;  but  these 
cannot  be  always  had  without  some  departure  from 
acciu'ate  classification,  and  the  order  of  minute  detail. 
It  seems  much  more  easy  to  justify  the  language  of 
the  opening  verses  of  Genesis  than,  for  example,  the 
convenient  usage  by  which  we  affirm  that  the  sun 
rises,  or  mounts  above  the  horizon,  and  sets,  or  de- 
scends below  it,  when  we  know  perfectly  well  that 
he  does  neither  the  one  nor  the  other.  As  to  the 
third  charge  of  scientific  error,  that  the  vegetable 
kingdom  appeared  before  it  could  be  subjected  to  the 
action  of  solar  light,  it  has  been  virtually  disposed  of. 
If  the  light  now  approj^riated  to  the  sun  alone  was 
gradually  gathering  toward  and  round  him,  why  may 
it  not  have  performed  its  proper  office  in  contributing 
to  vegetation  when  once  the  necessary  degree  of  sev- 
erance between  solid  and  fluid,  between  wet  and  dry, 


DA^YN    OF    CEEATIOK    AND    OF    WORSHIP.  17 

had  been  effected?  And  this  is  just  what  had  been 
described  in  the  formation  of  the  firmament,  and  the 
separation  of  land  from  sea. 

More  singular  still  seems  to  be  the  next  observation 
offered  by  Dr.  Reville  in  his  compound  labor  to  sat- 
isfy his  reader^,  first,  that  there  is  no  revelation  in 
Genesis,  and  secondly  that,  if  there  be,  it  is  one 
which  has  no  serious  or  relevant  meaning.  He  comes 
to  the  remarkable  expression  in  v.  26,  "  Let  us  make 
man  in  our  own  image."  There  has,  it  appeal's, 
been  much  difference  of  opinion  even  among  the  Jews 
on  the  meaning  of  this  verse."  The  Almighty  ad- 
dresses, as  some  think,  his  own  powers ;  as  others 
think,  the  angels;  others,  the  earth;  other  writers, 
especially,  as  it  appears,  Germans,  have  understood 
this  to  be  a  plural  of  dignity,  after  the  manner  of 
kings.  Others,  of  the  rationalizing  school,  conceive 
the  word  Elohim  to  be  a  relic  of  polytheism.  The 
ancient  Christian  interpreters,*  from  the  apostle  Bar- 
nabas onw^ard,  find  in  these  words  an  indication  of  a 
plurality  in  the  divine  unity.  Dr.  Eeville  (p.  43) 
holds  that  this  is  "  simply  the  royal  plui-al  used  in 
Hebrew  as  in  many  other  languages,"  or  else,  "  and 
more  probably,"  that  it  is  an  appeal  to  the  Bene 
Elohim  or  angels.  But  is  not  this  latter  meaning  a 
direct  assavdt  upon  the  supreme  truth  of  the  unity  of 
God?  If  he  chooses  the  former,  from  whence  does 
he  derive  his  knowledge  that  this  "  royal  plural "  was 
used  in  Hebrew  ?  Will  the  royal  plural  account  for 
(Gen.  iii,  22)  "  when  the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us  ? " 


*0n  this  expression,  I  refer  again  to  the  commentary  of 
Bishop  Harold  Browne.  Bishop  Mant  supplies  an  mterest- 
ing  list  of  testimonies. 


18  THE  ORDER  OF  CREATION. 

and  ■u'ould  George  II.,  if  saying  of  Cbai'les  Edward 
"  tlie  man  is  become  as  one  of  us."  have  intended  to 
convey  a  singular  or  a  plural  meaning  ?  Can  we  dis- 
prove the  assertion  of  Bishop  Hai-old  Browne,  that 
this  plurality  of  dignity  is  unknown  to  the  language 
of  scriptiu'e  ?  And  fui'ther,  if  we  make  the  violent 
assumption  that  the  Christian  Church  with  its  one 
voice  is  wrong  and  Dr.  Reville  right,  and  that  the 
words  were  not  meant  to  convey  the  idea  of  pltu'ality, 
yet,  if  they  have  been  such  as  to  lead  all  Christendom 
to  see  in  them  this  idea  through  1,800  years,  how  can 
he  be  sui'e  that  they  did  not  convey  a  hke  significa- 
tion to  the  earhest  hearers  or  readers  of  the  book  of 
Genesis  ? 

The  rest  of  Dr.  Reville' s  criticism  is  directed  rather 
to  the  significance  or  propriety  than  to  the  truth  of 
the  record.  It  is  not  necessai'y  to  follow  his  remarks 
in  detail,  but  it  will  help  the  reader  to  judge  how  far 
even  a  perfectly  upright  member  of  the  scientific  and 
compai'ative  school  can  indulge  an  unconscious  bias, 
if  notice  be  taken  in  a  single  instance  of  his  method 
of  compai'ing.  He  comj)ai'es  together  the  two  pai'ts 
of  the  prediction  that  the  seed  of  the  woman  shall 
bruise  the  head  of  the  serpent,  and  that  the  serpent 
shall  bruise  the  heel  of  the  seed  of  the  woman  (iii,  15); 
and  he  conceives  the  head  and  the  heel  to  be  so  much 
upon  a  par  in  their  relation  to  the  faculties  and  the 
vitality  of  a  man  that  he  can  find  here  nothing  to  in- 
dicate which  shall  get  the  better,  or,  in  his  own 
words,  '•  on  which  side  shall  be  the  final  victory " 
(p.  45).  St.  Paul  seems  to  have  taken  a  different  view 
when  he  wi'ote :  "  The  God  of  peace  shall  biniise 
Satan  under  your  feet  shortly  "  (Rom.  xvi,  20). 

Moreover,  "  otu*  author  "  (in  Dr.  Reville' s  phrase) 


DAWN    OF    CREATION    AND    OF    WORSHIP.  19 

is  censured  because  he  "  takes  special  care  to  point 
out  [p.  44]  that  the  first  pair  are  as  yet  strangers  to 
the  most  elementary  notions  of  morality,"  inasmuch 
as  they  are  unclothed,  yet  without  shame ;  nay,  even 
as  he  feelingly  says,  "  without  the  least  shame."  In 
what  the  morality  of  the  first  pair  consisted,  this  is 
hardly  the  place  to  discuss.  But  let  us  suppose  for 
a  moment  that  then-  morality  was  simply  the  morality 
of  a  little  child,  the  undeveloped  morality  of  obedi- 
ence, without  distinctly  formed  conceptions  of  an 
ethical  or  abstract  standard.  Is  it  not  plain  that 
their  feelings  would  have  been  exactly  what  the  book 
describes  (Gen.  ii,  25),  and  yet  that  in  theu*  loving 
obedience  to  theu'  father  and  creator  they  would  cer- 
tainly have  had  a  germ,  let  me  say  an  opening  bud,  of 
morahty  1  But  this  proposition,  taken  alone,  by  no 
means  does  justice  to  the  case.  Dr.  Reville  would  prob- 
ably put  aside  with  indifference  or  contempt  all  that 
depends  upon  the  dogma  of  the  Fall.  And  yet  there 
can  be  no  more  rational  idea,  no  idea  more  paljDably 
sustained,  whether  by  philosophy  or  by  experience. 
Namely,  this  idea :  that  the  commission  of  sin,  that 
is,  the  act  of  deliberately  breaking  a  loiown  law  of 
duty,  injxu'es  the  nature  and  composition  of  the  being 
who  commits  it.  It  injui'es  that  nature  in  deranging 
it,  in  altering  the  projDortion  of  its  parts  and  powers, 
in  introducing  an  inward  disorder  and  rebellion  of  the 
lower  against  the  higher,  too  moui-nfully  correspond- 
ing with  that  disorder  and  rebellion  produced  with- 
out, as  toward  God,  of  which  the  first  sin  was  the 
fountain-head.  Such  is,  I  believe,  the  language  of 
Christian  theology,  and  in  particular  of  St.  Augus- 
tine, one  of  its  prime  masters.  On  this  matter  I  ap- 
prehend that  Dr.  Reville,  when  judging  the  author  of 


20  *HE    ORDER    OF    CREATlOJf. 

Genesis,  judges  him  without  regard  to  his  fundamen- 
tal ideas  and  aims,  one  of  which  was  to  convey  that 
before  sinning  man  was  a  being  morally  and  physi- 
cally balanced,  and  nobly  pm-e  in  every  faculty ;  and 
that,  by  and  from  his  sinning,  the  sense  of  shame 
foiind  a  projDcr  and  necessaiy  place  in  a  nature  which 
before  was  only  open  to  the  sense  of  duty  and  of 
reverence. 

One  fui'ther  observation  only.  Dr.  Reville  seems 
to  "  score  one  "  when  he  finds  (Gen.  iv,  26)  that  Seth 
had  a  son,  and  that  "then  began  men  to  call  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord ;"  "  but  not,"  he  adds,  "  as  the  re- 
sult of  a  recorded  revelation."  Here  at  last  he  has 
found,  or  seemed  to  find,  the  beginning  of  rehgion, 
and  that  beginning  subjective,  not  revealed.  So  has- 
tily, from  the  first  aspect  of  the  text,  does  he  gather 
a  verbal  advantage,  which,  ujjon  the  slightest  inquiry, 
would  have  disappeai-ed  like  dew  in  the  morning  sun. 
He  assumes  the  rendering  of  a  text  which  has  been 
the  subject  of  every  kind  of  question  and  dispute, 
the  only  thing  apparently  agreed  on  being  that  his 
interpretation  is  wholly  excluded.  Upon  a  disputed 
original,  and  a  disputed  interpretation  of  the  dis- 
puted original,  he  founds  a  signification  in  flat  con- 
tradiction to  the  whole  of  the  former  narrative,  to 
Elohist  and  Jehovist  ahke ;  which  narrative,  if  it  rep- 
resents anything,  represents  a  continuity  of  active 
reciprocal  relation  between  God  and  man  both  before 
and  after  the  transgression.  Not  to  mention  differ- 
erences  of  translation,  which  essentially  change  the 
meaning  of  the  words,  the  text  itself  is  given  by  the 
double  authority  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch*  and 


*  See  Bishop  of  Winchester's  "  Commentary." 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP.  21 

of  the  Septuagint  in  the  singular  number,  which  of 
itself  wholly  destroys  the  construction  of  Dr.  Reville. 
I  do  not  enter  uj)on  the  difficult  question  of  conflict- 
ing authorities ;  but  I  tu'ge  that  is  unsafe  to  build  an 
important  conclusion  upon  a  seriously  controverted 
reading.* 

There  is  nothing,  then,  in  the  ciiticisms  of  Dr. 
Reville  but  what  rather  tends  to  confirm  than  to  im- 
j)au'  the  old-fashioned  belief  that  there  is  a  revelation 
in  the  book  of  Genesis.  With  his  argument  outside 
this  proposition  I  have  not  dealt.  I  make  no  assump- 
tion as  to  what  is  termed  a  verbal  inspii'ation,  and  of 
course  in  admitting  the  vaiiety  I  give  up  the  abso- 
lute integrity  of  the  text.  Upon  the  presumable 
age  of  the  book  and  its  compilation  I  do  not  enter — 
not  even  to  contest  the  opinion  which  brings  it  down 
below  the  age  of  Solomon — beyond  observing  that  in 
every  j)age  it  apppears  from  internal  evidence  to  be- 
long to  a  remote  antiquity.  There  is  here  no  ques- 
tion of  the  chronology,  or  of  the  date  of  man,  or  of 
knowledge  or  ignorance  in  the  primitiv  man,  or 
whether  the  element  of  parable  enters  into  any  por- 
tion of  the  narrative  ;  or  whether  every  statement  of 
fact  contained  in  the  text  of  the  book  can  now  be 
made  good.  It  is  enough  for  my  present  pru'pose  to 
point  to  the  cosmogony,  and  the  foru*fold  succession 
of  the  hving  organisms  as  entu-ely  harmonizing,  ac- 
cording to  present  knowledge,  with  belief  in  a  revela- 


*  This  perplexed  question  is  discussed,  in  a  sense  adverse 
totlie  Septuagint,  by  the  critics  of  the  recent  Revision,  in  the 
Quarterly  Revieio  for  October,  No.  322.  Tlie  revisers  of  the 
Old  Testament  state  (Preface,  p.  vi)  that  in  a  few  cases  of  ex- 
treme difficulty  they  have  set  aside  the  Massoretic  Text  in 
favor  of  a  readingr  from  one  of  the  ancient  versions. 


22  THE    OEDER    OF    CREATION. 

tion,  and  as  presenting  to  the  rejector  of  that  belief 
a  problem  which  demands  solution  at  his  hands,  and 
which  he  has  not  yet  been  able  to  solve.  Whether 
this  revelation  was  conveyed  to  the  ancestors  of  the 
whole  human  race  who  have  at  the  time  or  since  ex- 
isted, I  do  not  know,  and  the  scriptm-es  do  not  appear 
to  me  to  make  the  afiu'mation,  even  if  they  do  not  con- 
vey certain  indications  which  favor  a  contrary  opin- 
ion. Again,  whether  it  contains  the  whole  of  the 
knowledge  specially  vouchsafed  to  the  j)arents  of  the 
Noachian  races  may  be  very  doubtful ;  though  of 
coui'se  great  caution  must  be  exercised  in  regard  to 
the  pai'ticulars  of  any  primeval  tradition  not  derived 
from  the  text  of  the  eai'hest  among  the  sacred  books. 
I  have  thus  far  confined  myself  to  rebutting  objec- 
tions. But  I  will  now  add  some  positive  considera- 
tions which  apj)eai'  to  me  to  sustain  the  ancient  and, 
as  I  am  persuaded,  impregnable  belief  of  Christians 
and  of  Jews  concerning  the  inspu'ation  of  the  book. 
I  offer 'them  as  one  wholly  destitute  of  that  kind  of 
knowledge  which  caiTies  authority,  and  who  speaks 
derivitively  as  best  he  can,  after  listening  to  teachers 
of  repute  and  such  as  practice  rational  methods. 

I  understand  the  pages  of  the  majestic  process  de- 
scribed in  the  book  of  Genesis  to  be  m  general  out- 
line as  follows  : 

1.  The  point  of  departure  is  the  formless  mass, 
created  by  God,  out  of  which  the  earth  was  shaped 
and  constituted  a  thing  of  individual  existence 
(verses  1,  2). 

2.  The  detachment  and  collection  of  light,  leaving 
in  darkness  as  it  proceeded  the  still  chaotic  mass  from 
which  it  was  detached  (verses  3-5).     The  narrative 


DAWN    OF    CREATION    AND    OF    \VOKSHIP.  23 

assigning  a  space  of  time  to  each  process  appears  to 
show  that  each  was  gradual,  not  instantaneous. 

2.  The  detachment  of  Hght  from  darkness  is  fol- 
lowed by  the  detachment  of  wet  from  di'y,  and  of 
sohd  from  liquid  in.  the  firmament  and  on  the  face  of 
the  earth.  Each  of  these  operations  occupies  a 
"  day,"  and  the  conditions  of  vegetable  life,  as  known 
to  us  by  exj)erience,  being  now  provided,  the  order  of 
the  vegetable  kingdom  had  begun  (verses  6-13). 

4.  Next  comes  the  presentation  to  us  of  the  heav- 
enly bodies,  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  in  their  final  forms, 
when  the  completion  of  the  process  of  light-collection, 
and  concentration  in  the  sun,  and  the  due  clearing  of 
the  intervening  spaces,  had  enabled  the  central  orb 
to  illuminate  us  both  with  dii'ect  and  with  reflected 
light  (verses  14-19). 

5.  So  far,  we  have  been  busy  only  with  the  adjust- 
ment of  material  agencies.  We  now  arrive  at  the 
dawn  of  animated  being ;  and  a  great  transition 
seems  to  be  marked  as  a  kind  of  recommencement  of 
the  work,  for  the  name  of  creation  is  again  intro- 
duced.    God  created 

(a)  The  water-population ; 

(b)  The  air-population. 

And  they  receive  his  benediction  (verses  20-23). 

6.  Pursuing  this  regulai-  pi'ogression  from  the 
lower  to  the  higher,  from  the  simple  to  the  complex, 
the  text  now  gives  us  the  work  of  the  sixth  "  day," 
which  supplies  the  land-poj)ulation,  air  and  water 
having  already  been  supplied.  But  in  it  there  is  a 
sub-division,  and  the  transition  from  (c)  animal  to  {d) 
man,  like  the  transition  from  animate  to  inanimate,  is 
again  marked  as  a  great  occasion,  a  kind  of  recom- 
mencement.    For  this  purpose  the  word  "  create  "  is 


24 


THE    OKDER    OF    CREATION. 


a  third  time  employed.  "  God  created  man  in  his 
own  image,"  and  once  more  he  gave  benediction  to 
this  the  final  work  of  his  hands,  and  endowed  our 
race  with  its  high  dominion  over  what  lived  and  what 
did  not  hve  (verses  24-31). 

I  do  not  dwell  on  the  cessation  of  the  Almighty 
from  the  creating  and  (ii,  1)  "finishing"  work,  which 
is  the  "  rest  "  and  mai'ks  the  seventh  "  day,"  because 
it  introduces  another  order  of  considerations.  But 
glancing  back  at  the  narrative  which  now  forms  the 
first  chapter,  I  offer  perhaps  a  prejudiced  and  in  any 
case  no  more  than  a  passing  remark.  If  we  view  it 
as  a  popular  narrative,  it  is  singularly  vivid,  forcible, 
and  effective  ;  if  we  take  it  as  as  a  poem,  it  is  indeed 
sublime.  No  wonder  if  it  became  classical  and  reap- 
peared in  the  glorious  devotions  of  the  Hebrew 
people,*  pursuing,  in  a  great  degree,  the  same  order 
of  topics  as  in  the  book  of  Genesis. 

But  the  question  is  not  here  of  a  lofty  jDoem,  or  a 
skilfully  constructed  nai'rative ;  it  is  whether  natural 
science,  in  the  patient  exercise  of  its  high  calling  to 
examine  facts,  finds  that  the  works  of  God  cry  out 
against  what  we  have  fondly  believed  to  be  his  word, 
and  tell  another  tale,  or  whether,  in  this  nineteenth 
centvu'y  of  Christian  progress,  it  substantially  echoes 
back  the  majestic  soimd  which,  before  it  existed  as  a 
pursuit,  went  forth  into  all  lands. 

Fh'st,  looking  largely  at  the  latter  portion  of  the 
narrative,  which  describes  the  creation  of  hviiig  organ- 
isms, and  waiving  details,  on  some  of  which  (as  in 
verse  24)    the  Septuagint  seems   to  vary  from  the 


*  Ps.  civ,  2-20,  cxxxvi,   5-9,  and  the  Song  of  the  Three 
Children  in  verses  57-60. 


DAWN    OF    CREATION    AND    OF    WORSHIP.  25 

Hebrew,  there  is  a  gi-ancl  foui-fold  division  set  forth 
m  an  orderly  succession  of  times  as  follows :  on  the 
fifth  day 

1.  The  water-population ; 

2.  The  aii'-population ; 
and,  on  the  sixth  day, 

3.  The  land-population  of  animals ; 

4.  The  land-population  consummated  in  man. 
Now  this  same   fourfold  order  is  understood  to 

have  been  so  affirmed  in  our  time  by  natural  science 
that  it  may  be  taken  as  a  demonstrated  conclusion 
and  estabhshed  fact.  Then,  I  ask,  how  came  Moses, 
or,  not  to  cavil  on  the  word,  how  came  the  author  of 
the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  to  know  that  order,  to 
possess  knowledge  which  natural  science  has  only 
within  the  present  centu.ry  for  the  first  time  dug  out 
of  the  bowels  of  the  eai'th  ?  It  is  surely  impossible 
to  avoid  the  conclusion,  first,  that  either  this  writer 
was  gifted  with  faculties  passing  all  human  experi- 
ence, or  else  his  knowledge  was  divine.  The  first 
branch  of  the  alternative  is  truly  nominal  and  unreal. 
We  know  the  sphere  within  which  human  inquiry 
toils.  We  know  the  heights  to  which  the  intuitions 
of  genius  may  soar.  We  know  that  in  certain  cases 
genius  anticipates  science ;  as  Homer,  for  example, 
in  his  account  of  the  conflict  of  the  four  winds  in  the 
sea-storms.  But  even  in  these  anticipations,  mar- 
velous, and,  so  to  speak,  imperial  as  they  are,  genius 
cannot  escape  from  one  inexorable  law.  It  must  have 
materials  of  sense  or  experience  to  work  with,  and  a 
Ttov  (Trc5  from  whence  to  take  its  flight ;  and  genius 
can  no  more  tell,  apart  from  some  at  least  of  the 
I'esults  attained  by  inquiry,  what  are  the  contents  of 


2G  THE    OKDEK    OF    CREATION. 

the  crust  of  the  earth,  than  it  could  square  the  circle 
or  annihilate  a  fact.* 

So  stands  a  plea  for  a  revelation  of  truth  from  God, 
a  plea  only  to  be  met  by  questioning  its  possibility  ; 
that  is,  as  Dr.  Salmon  (Introduction  of  the  New 
Testament,  p.  ix.  Mui'ray,  1885)  has  observed  with 
great  force  in  a  recent  work,  by  suggesting  that  a 
being,  able  to  make  man,  is  unable  to  communicate 
with  the  creature  he  has  made.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  objector  confine  himself  to  a  merely  nega- 
tive position,  and  cast  the  burden  of  proof  on  those 
who  beheve  in  revelation,  it  is  obvious  to  reply  by  a 
reference  to  the  actual  constitution  of  things.  Had 
that  constitution  been  normal  or  morally  undisturbed, 
it  might  have  been  held  that  revelation  as  an  achnini- 
culum,  in  addition  to  oui'  natural  faculties,  would 
itself  have  been  a  distvu'bance.  But  the  disturbance 
has  in  truth  been  created  in  the  other  scale  of  the 
balance  by  departure  from  the  suj)reme  will,  by  the 
introduction  of  sin ;  and  revelation,  as  a  special  rem- 
edy for  a  special  evil,  is  a  contribution  towai'd 
symmetry,  and  toward  restoration  of  the  original 
equihbrium. 

Thus  far  only  the  fovu'fold  succession  of  the  living 
orders  has  been  noticed.  But  among  the  persons  of 
very  high  authority  in  natural  science  quoted  by  Dr. 
Ileusch,t  who  held  the  general  accordance  of  the 


*In  conversation  with  Miss  Burney  (Diary  i,  576),  Johnson, 
using  language  which  sounds  more  disparaging  than  it  reallj- 
is,  declares  that  "genius  is  nothing  more  than  knowing  the 
use  of  tools  ;  but  then  there  must  be  tools  for  it  to  use." 

tBibel  und  Natur,  pp.  2,  63.  The  words  of  Cuvier  are  : 
"  Moyses  hat  uns  eine  Kosmogenie  hinterlassen,  deren  Ge- 
nauigkeit  mit  jedem  Tage  in  einer  bewunderungswiirdigern 


DAWN    OF    CREATION    AND    OF    WORSHIP  27 

Mosaic  cosmogony  with  the  results  of  modern  in- 
quiry, ai-e  Cuvier  and  Sii-  John  Herschel.  The  words 
of  Cuvier  show  he  conceived  that  "  every  day  "  fresh 
confirmation  from  the  purely  human  source  accrued 
to  the  credit  of  scrij)ture.  And  since  his  day,  for  he 
cannot  now  be  called  a  recent  authority,  this  opinion 
appeal's  to  have  received  some  remarkable  illustra- 
tions. 

Half  a  century  ago  Dr.  Whew^ell  (Wliewell's  Astron- 
omy and  General  Physics,  1834,  p.  181,  seqq.)  dis- 
cussed, under  the  name  of  the  nebular  hypothesis, 
that  theory  of  rotation  which  had  been  indicated  by 
Herschel,  and  more  largely  taught  by  Laplace,  as  the 
probable  method  through  which  the  solar  system  has 
taken  its  form.  Cai'efully  abstaining,  at  that  early 
date,  from  a  formal  judgment  on  the  hypothesis,  he 
aj)pears  to  discuss  it  with  favor ;  and  he  shows  that 
this  hypothesis,  w-hich  assumes  "  a  beginning  of  the 
present  state  of  things"  (Whewell,  o/:>.  cit.  p.  20G), 
is  in  no  way  adverse  to  the  Mosaic  cosmogony.  The 
theory  has  received  marked  support  from  opposite 
quarters.  In  the  "  Vestiges  of  Creation  "  it  is  frankly 
adopted ;  the  very  curious  experiment  of  Professor 
Plateau  is  detailed  at  length  on  its  behalf  (Ves- 
tiges, etc.,  pp.  11-15) ;  and  the  author  considers,  with 
Laplace,  that  the  zodiacal  light,  on  which  Humboldt 
in  his  "  Kosmos  "  has  dwelt  at  large,  may  be  a  remnant 
of  the  liuninous  atmosphere  originally  diffused  around 
the  sun.  Dr.  McCaul,  in  his  very  able  argument  on 
the  Mosaic  record,  quotes  (Aids  to  Faith,  p.  210) 
Humboldt,    Pfaff   and   Madler — a    famous    German 


Weise  bestatigt  ist."     The  declaration  of  Sir  John  Herschel 
was  in  1864. 


28  THE  ORDER  OF  CREATIOiSr. 

astronomer — as  adhering  to  it.  It  appears  on  the 
whole  to  be  in  possession  of  the  field ;  and  Mr. 
McCaul  observes  (ibid)  that,  "  had  it  been  devised 
for  the  express  purjDose  of  removing  the  supposed 
difficiilties  of  the  Mosaic  record,  it  could  hardly  have 
been  more  to  the  purpose."  Even  if  we  conceive, 
with  Dr.  Eeville,  that  the  "  creation,"  the  first  gift  of 
separate  existences  to  the  planets,  is  declared  to  have 
been  subsequent  to  that  of  the  earth,  there  seems  to 
be  no  known  law  which  excludes  such  a  supposition, 
especially  with  respect  to  the  larger  and  more  distant 
of  their  number.  These,  it  is  to  be  noticed,  are  of 
great  rarity  as  compared  with  the  earth.  Why  should 
it  be  declared  impossible  that  they  should  have  taken 
a  longer  time  in  condensation,  like  in  this  poiut  to 
the  comets,  which  still  continue  in  a  state  of  excessive 
rarity?  "Want  of  space  forbids  me  to  enter  into 
further  explanation ;  but  it  requires  much  more 
serious  efforts  and  objections  than  those  of  Dr  Re- 
ville  to  confute  the  statement  that  the  extension  of 
knowledge  and  of  inquiry  has  confirmed  the  Mosaic 
record. 

One  word,  however,  upon  the  "  days  "  of  Genesis. 
We  do  not  hear  the  authority  of  scriptuie  impeached 
on  the  ground  that  it  assigns  to  the  Almighty  eyes 
and  ears,  hands,  arms,  and  feet ;  nay,  even  the  emo- 
tions of  the  human  being.  This  being  so,  I  am  unable 
to  understand  why  any  disparagement  to  the  credit 
of  the  sacred  books  should  ensue  because,  to  describe 
the  order  and  successive  stages  of  the  divine  working, 
these  have  been  distributed  into  "  days."  What  was 
the  thing  required  in  order  to  make  this  great  pro- 
cession of  acts  intelligible  and  impressive  ?  Surely 
it  was  to  distribute  the  parts  each  into  some  integral 


t)A\\N    OF    CKEATION    AND    OF    WORSHIP.  29 

division  of  time,  having  the  character  of  something 
complete  in  itself,  of  a  revolution,  or  outset  and 
return.  There  are  but  three  such  divisions  familiarly 
known  to  man.  Of  these  the  day  was  the  most  famil- 
iar to  human  perceptions ;  and  probably  on  this 
account  its  figurative  use  is  admitted  to  be  found  in 
prophetic  texts,  as,  indeed,  it  largely  j)ervades  ancient 
and  modern  speech.  Given  the  object  in  view,  which 
indeed  can  hardly  be  questioned,  does  it  not  appear 
that  the  "  day,"  more  definitely  separated  than  either 
month  or  year  from  what  precedes  and  what  follows, 
was  appropriately  chosen  for  the  purpose  of  convey- 
ing the  idea  of  development  by  gradation  in  the 
process,  which  the  book  sets  forth  ? 

I  now  come  to  the  last  portion  of  my  task,  which 
is  to  follow  Dr.  Reville  into  his  exposition  of  the 
Oiymi^ian  mythology.  Not,  indeed,  the  Homeric  or 
Greek  religion  alone,  for  he  has  considered  the  case 
of  all  religions,  and  disposes  of  them  with  equal 
facility.  Of  any  other  system  than  the  Olympian  it 
would  be  presumption  in  me  to  speak,  as  I  have,  be- 
yond this  limit,  none  but  the  most  vague  and 
superficial  knowledge.  But  on  the  Olympian  system 
in  its  eai'Uest  and  least  adulterated,  namely  its  Ho- 
meric development,  whether  with  success  or  not,  I 
have  freely  employed  a  large  shai'e  of  such  leisui-e  as 
more  than  thirty  years  of  my  Parliamentaiy  life, 
passed  in  freedom  from  the  calls  of  office,  have  sup- 
plied. I  hope  that  there  is  not  in  Dr.  Reville's 
treatment  of  other  systems  that  slightness  of  texture, 
and  that  facihty  and  rapidity  of  conclusion,  which 
seem  to  me  to  mai'k  his  performances  in  the  Olympian 
field. 

In  the  main  he   follows  what  is  called  the  solar 


30  THE    ORDER    OF    CREATION. 

theory.  In  his  widest  view  he  embraces  no  more 
than"  "the  religion  of  nature"  (pj).  94,  100),  and  he 
holds  that  all  religion  has  sprung  from  the  worship 
of  objects  visible  and  sensible. 

His  fii'st  essay  is  upon  Heracles,  whom  I  have 
found  to  be  one  of  the  most  difficvdt  and,  so  to  speak, 
uTeducible  characters  in  the  Olympian  mythology. 
In  the  Tyrian  system  Heracles,  as  Melkart,  says  Dr. 
Reville  in  p.  95,  is  "  a  brazen  god,  the  devourer  of 
children,  the  terror  of  men ; "  but,  without  any  loss 
of  identity,  he  becomes  in  the  Greek  system,  "  the 
great  lawgiver,  the  tamer  of  monsters,  the  peace- 
maker, the  liberator."  I  am  deeply  impressed  with 
the  danger  that  Im-ks  in  these  summary  and  easy 
solutions  ;  and  I  will  offer  a  few  words  first  on  the 
Greek  Heracles  generally,  next  on  the  Homeric  pre- 
sentation of  the  character. 

Dr.  L.  Schmidt  has  contributed  to  Smith's  great 
dictionary  a  large  and  careful  article  on  Heracles ;  an 
article  which  may  almost  be  called  a  treatise.  Unlike 
Dr.  Reville,  to  whom  the  matter  is  so  clear,  he  finds 
himself  out  of  his  depth  in  attempting  to  deal  with 
this  highly  incongruous  character,  which  meets  us  at 
so  many  j^oints,  as  a  whole.  But  he  perceives  in  the 
Heracles  of  Greece  a  mixtui'e  of  fabulous  and  historic 
elements :  and  the  mythical  basis  is  not,  according  to 
him,  a  transplanted  Melkart,  but  is  essentially  Greek 
(Smith's  Diet,  ii,  400).  He  refers  to  Buttmann's 
"  Mythologus  "  and  Miiller's  "Dorians"  as  the  best 
treatises  on  the  subject,  "  both  of  which  regard  the 
hero  as  a  pui-ely  Greek  character."  Thus  Dr.  Reville 
appears  to  be  in  conflict  with  the  leading  authorities, 
whom  he  does  not  confute,  but  simply  ignores. 

Homer  himself  may  have  felt  the  difficulty  which 


DAAVN    OF    CREATION    AND    OF    WORSHIP.  31 

Dr.  Reville  does  not  feel,  for  he  presents  to  us,  in  one 
and  tlie  same  passage,  a  divided  Heracles.  Whatever 
of  him  is  not  eidolon  (Od.  xi,  GOl-4)  dwells  among 
the  Olympian  gods.  This  eidolon,  however,  is  no 
mere  shade,  but  something  that  sees  and  speaks,  that 
moui'ns  and  threatens  ;  no  "  lawgiver,"  or  "  peace- 
maker," or  "  liberator,"  but  one  from  whom  the  other 
shades  fly  in  terror,  set  in  the  place  and  company  of 
sinners  suffering  for  then-  sins,  and  presumably  him- 
self in  the  same  predicament,  as  the  sense  of  grief  is 
assigned  to  him  :  it  is  in  wailing  that  he  addresses 
Odysseus  (Od.  xi,  605-16).  Accordingly,  whil«  on 
earth,  he  is  thrasumemnon  (Od.  xi,  267),  huperthu- 
mos  (II.  xiv,  250),  a  doer  of  megala  erga  (Od.  xxi, 
26),  which  with  Homer  commonly  are  crimes.  He  is 
profane,  for  he  wounded  Here,  the  specially  Achaian 
goddess  (II.  V.  392) ;  and  he  is  treacherous,  for  he 
killed  Iphitos,  his  host,  in  order  to  carry  off  his 
horses  (Od.  xxi,  26-30).  A  mixed  character,  no 
doubt,  or  he  would  not  have  had  Hebe  for  a  partner ; 
but  those  which  I  have  stated  are  some  of  the  diffi- 
culties which  Dr  Reville  quietly  rides  over  to  describe 
him  as  a  lawgiver,  peacemaker,  and  hberator.  But  I 
proceed. 

Nearly  everything,  with  Dr.  Reville,  and,  indeed, 
with  his  school,  has  to  be  pressed  into  the  service  of 
the  solar  theory ;  and  if  the  evidence  will  not  bear  it, 
so  much  the  worse  for  the  e-sddence.  Thus  Ixion, 
tortui'ed  in  the  later  Greek  system  on  a  wheel,  which 
is  sometimes  represented  as  a  burning  wheel,  is  made 
(p.  105)  to  be  the  sun ;  the  luminary  whose  splendor 
and  benificence  had  rendered  him,  according  to  the 
theory,  the  center  of  all  Aryan  worship.  A  sorry  use 
to  put  him  to  ;  but  let  that  pass.     Now  the  occasion 


32  THE   ORDER    OF    CREATION. 

that  supplies  an  Ixion  and  a  biu-ning  wheel  available 
for  solarism — a  system  which  prides  itself  above  all 
things  on  its  exhibiting  the  primitive  state  of  things — 
is  that  Ixion  has  loved  unlawfully  the  wife  of  Zeus. 
And  first  as  to  the  wheel.  We  hear  of  it  in  Pindar 
(Pyth.  ii,  39) ;  but  as  a.  winged,  not  a  burning  wheel. 
This  "  solar  "  featui'e  appears,  I  beheve,  nowhere  but 
in  the  latest  and  most  defaced  and  adulterated 
mythology.  Next  as  to  the  punishment.  It  is  of  a 
more  respectable  antiquity.  But  some  heed  should 
surely  be  taken  of  the  fact  that  the  oldest  authority 
upon  Ixion  is  Homer;  and  that  Homer  affords  no 
plea  for  a  burning  or  any  other  wheel,  for  according 
to  him  (II.  xiv,  317),  instead  of  Ixion's  loving  the  wife 
of  Zeus,  it  was  Zeus  who  loved  the  wife  of  Ixion. 

Errors,  conveyed  without  testimony  in  a  sentence, 
commonly  require  many  sentences  to  confute  them. 
I  will  not  dwell  on  minor  cases,  or  those  j)ui-ely  fanci- 
ful ;  for  mere  fancies,  which  may  be  admired  or  the 
reverse,  are  imj)alpable  to  the  clutch  of  argument, 
and  thus  are  hardly  subjects  for  confutation.  Jr*aulb 
majora  canamus.  I  continue  to  tread  the  field  of 
Greek  mythology,  because  it  is  the  favorite  sporting- 
grormd  of  the  exclusivists  of  the  solar  theory. 

We  ai'e  told  (p.  80)  that  because  waves  with 
rounded  backs  may  have  the  aiDpearance  (but  query) 
of  horses  or  sheep  throwing  themselves  tumultuously 
upon  one  anothei*,  therefore  "in  maritime  regions, 
the  god  of  the  liquid  element,  Poseidon  or  Neptune, 
is  the  breeder,  protector,  and  trainer  of  horses." 
Then  why  is  he  not  also  the  breeder,  protector,  and 
trainer  of  sheep  ?  They  have  qviite  as  good  a  mari- 
time title  ;  according  to  the  first  line  of  Ai'iosto  : 
Muggendo  van  per  mare,  i  gran  montoni. 


DAWN  OF  CEKATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP.  33 

I  am  altogether  skeptical  about  these  rounded 
backs  of  horses,  which,  more,  it  seems,  than  other 
backs,  become  conspicuous  like  a  wave.  The  resem- 
blance, I  believe,  has  commonly  been  di'awn  between 
the  horse,  as  regards  his  mane,  and  the  foam-tipped 
waves,  which  are  still  sometimes  called  white  horses. 
But  we  have  here,  at  best,  a  case  of  great  super- 
structure built  upon  a  slight  foundation ;  when  it  is 
attempted,  on  the  groundwork  of  a  mere  simile,  hav- 
ing reference  to  a  state  of  sea  which  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean is  not  the  rule  but  the  rare  exception,  to  frame 
an  explanation  of  the  close,  pervading,  and  almost 
profound  relation  of  the  Homeric  Poseidon  to  the 
horse.  Long  and  careful  investigation  has  shown  me 
that  this  is  an  ethnical  relation,  and  a  key  to  impor- 
tant parts  of  the  ethnography  of  Homer.  But  the 
proof  of  this  proposition  would  require  an  essay  of 
itself.  I  will,  therefore,  only  refer  to  the  reason 
which  leads  Dr.  Reville  to  construct  this  (let 
me  say)  castle  in  the  aii\  It  is  because  he  thinks 
he  is  accounting  hereby  for  a  fact,  which  would  in- 
deed, if  established,  be  a  startling  one,  that  the  god 
of  the  hquid  element  should  also  be  the  god  of  the 
horse.  We  are  dealing  now  especially  with  the 
Homeric  Poseidon,  for  it  is  in  Homer  that  the  rela- 
tion to  the  horse  is  developed  ;  and  the  way  to  a  true 
explanation  is  opened  when  we  observe  that  the 
Homeric  Poseidon  is  7iot  the  god  of  the  liquid  element 
at  all. 

The  truth  is  that  the  Olympian  and  ruling  gods  of 
Homer  are  not  elemental.  Some  few  of  them  bear 
the  marks  of  having  been  elemental  in  other  systems ; 
but,  on  admission  into  the  Achaian  heaven,  they  are 
divested  of  their  elemental  featm-es.     In  the  case  of 


34  THE    ORDER    OF    CREATION. 

Poseidon  there  is  no  sign  that  he  ever  had  these 
elemental  features.  The  signs  are  unequivocal  that 
he  had  been  worshiped  as  supreme,  as  the  Zeus-Po- 
seidon, by  certain  races  and  in  certain,  viz.  in  far 
southern,  countries.  Certainly  he  has  a  special  rela- 
tion to  the  sea.  Once,  and  once  only,  do  we  hear  of 
his  having  habitation  under  the  water  (II.  xiii,  17-31). 
It  is  in  n.  xiii  where  he  fetches  his  horses  from  it,  to 
repair  to  the  Trojan  j)lain.  He  seems  to  have  been 
an  habitual  absentee;  the  prototype,  he  might  be 
called,  of  that  ill-starred,  ill-favored  class.  We  heai" 
of  him  in  Samothrace,  on  the  Solyman  mountains, 
as  visiting  the  Ethiopians  (Od.  i,  25,  26),  who  wor- 
shipped him,  and  the  reek  of  whose  offerings  he 
preferred  at  such  times  to  the  society  of  the  Olympian 
gods  debating  on  Helenic  affau's ;  though,  when  we 
are  in  the  zone  of  the  outer  geography,  we  find  him 
actually  presiding  in  an  Olympian  assembly  marked 
with  foreign  associations  (Od.  viii,  321-66).  Now 
compare  with  this  great  mundane  figure  the  true 
elemental  gods  of  Homer ;  first  Okeanos,  a  venerable 
figure,  who  dwells  appropriately  by  the  fiu'thest  (II. 
xiv,  201)  bound  of  earth,  the  bank  of  the  Ocean  river, 
and  who  is  not  summoned  (II.  xx,  7)  even  to  the  great 
Olympian  assembly  of  the  twentieth  book ;  and  sec- 
ondly, the  graybeard  of  the  sea,  whom  only  from 
the  patronymic  of  his  Nereid  daughters  we  know  to 
have  been  called  Nereus,  and  who,  when  reference  is 
made  to  him  and  his  train,  is  on  each  occasion  (II.  i, 
358  ;  xviii,  36)  to  be  found  in  one  and  the  same  place, 
the  deep  recesses  of  the  Mediterranean  waters.  If 
Dr.  Reville  still  doubts  who  was  for  Homer  the 
elemental  god  of  water,  let  him  note  the  fact  that 
while  neros  is  old  Greek  for  wet,  nero  is,  down  to  this 


DAWN    01'    CREATION    AND    OF    WORSHIP.  35 

very  day,  the  people's  word  for  water.  But,  con- 
clusive as  are  these  considerations,  their  force  will  be 
most  fully  appreciated  only  by  those  who  have  closely 
observed  that  Homer's  entire  thevu'gic  system  is  res- 
olutely exclusive  or  nature-worship,  except  in  its 
lowest  and  most  colorless  orders,  and  that  where  he 
has  to  deal  with  a  nature-power  of , serious  pretensions, 
such  as  the  water-god  would  be,  he  is  apt  to  pursue 
a  method  of  quiet  suppression,  by  local  banishment 
or  otherwise,  that  space  may  be  left  him  to  play  out 
upon  his  board  the  gorgeous  and  imposing  figures  of 
his  theanthi'opic  system. 

As  a  siu'geon  performs  the  most  terrible  operation 
in  a  few  seconds,  and  with  unbroken  calm,  so 
does  the  school  of  Dr.  Reville,  at  least  within  the 
Homeric  precinct,  marshal,  label,  and  transmute  the 
personages  that  are  found  there.  In  touching  on 
the  "log,"  by  which  Dr.  Reville  says  Hera  was 
represented  for  ages,  she  is  quietly  described  as 
the  "queen  of  the  shining  heaven"  (p.  79).  For 
this  assumption,  so  naively  made,  I  am  aware  of  no 
authority  whatever  among  the  Greeks — a  somewhat 
formidable  difficulty  for  others  than  solarists,  as  we 
are  dealing  with  an  eminently  Greek  conception. 
Euripides,  a  rather  late  authority,  says  (Eurip. 
Helena,  109),  she  dwells  among  the  stars,  as  all 
deities  might  be  said,  ex  officio,  to  do  ;  but  gives  no 
indication  either  of  identity  or  of  queenship.  Ety- 
mology, stoutly  disputed,  may  aiford  a  refuge. 
Schmidt  (Smith's  Diet.,  art,  "  Hera")  refers  the  name 
to  the  Latin  hera;  Curtius  (Griech.  Etymol.,  p.  119) 
and  Preller  (PreUer,  Griech.  Mythol.  i,  121)  to  the 
Sanscrit  svar,  meaning  the  heaven;  and  Welcker 
(Griech.  Gotterlehi-e  i,  362-3),  with  others,  to  what 


36  THE    OKDEE    OF    CREATION. 

appears  the  more  obvious  form  of,  epa,  the  earth. 
Dr.  Reville,  I  presume,  makes  choice  of  the  Sanscrit 
svar.  Such  etymologies,  however,  are,  though  greatly 
in  favor  with  the  solarists,  most  uncertain  guides  to 
Greek  interj)retation.  The  effect  of  trusting  to  them 
is  that,  if  a  deity  has  in  some  foreign  or  anterior  sys- 
tem had  a  certain  place  or  office,  and  if  this  place  or 
office  has  been  altered  to  suit  the  exigencies  of  a 
composite  mytholygy,  the  Greek  idea  is  totally  mis- 
conceived. If  we  take  the  pre-name  of  the  Homeric 
Apollo,  we  may  with  some  plausibihty  say  the  Phoi- 
hos  of  the  poet  is  the  sun ;  but  we  are  landed  at  once 
in  the  absurd  consequence  that  we  have  got  a  sun 
already  (See  infra.)  and  that  the  two  are  joint  actors 
in  a  scene  of  the  eighth  "  Odyssey"  (Od.  viii,  302, 
334).  Strange,  indeed,  will  be  the  effect  of  such  a 
system  if  apj)lied  to  our  own  case  at  some  date  in  the 
far-off  future ;  for  it  will  be  shown,  hiter  alia,  that 
there  were  no  jDi'iests,  but  only  presbyters,  in  any 
portion  of  Western  Christendom ;  that  our  dukes 
were  simply  generals  leading  us  in  war;  that  we 
broke  our  fast  at  eight  in  the  evening  (for  diner  iBhui 
a  compression  of  dejewier);  and  even,  possibly,  that 
one  of  the  noblest  and  most  famous  of  English 
houses  pursued  habitually  the  humble  occupation  of 
a  pig-di'iver. 

The  character  of  Hera,  or  Here,  has  received  from 
Homer  a  full  and  elaborate  development.  There  is 
in  it  absolutely  no  trace  whatever  of  "the  queen  of 
the  shining  heaven."  In  the  action  of  the  "  Odyssey" 
she  has  no  share  at  all — a  fact  absolutely  unaccount- 
able if  her  function  was  one  for  which  the  voyages  of 
that  poem  give  much  more  scope  than  is  supplied  by 
the  "  Iliad."     The  fact  is  that  there  is  no  queen  of 


DAWN    OF    CREATION   AND    OF    WORSHIP.  37 

heaven  in  the  Achaian  system ;  nor  could  there  be 
without  altering  its  whole  genius.  It  is  a  curious  in- 
cidental fact  that,  although  Homer  recognizes  to  some 
extent  humanity  in  the  stars  (I  refer  to  Orion  and 
Leucothee,  both  of  them  foreign  personages  of  the 
outer  geogi'aphy),  he  never  even  approximates  to  a 
personification  of  the  real  queen  of  heaven,  namely, 
the  moon.  There  happens  to  be  one  marked  incident 
of  the  action  of  Hera,  which  stands  in  rather  ludicrous 
contrast  with  this  lucent  queenship.  On  one  occasion 
when,  in  vktue  of  her  bu-th  and  station,  she  exercises 
some  sujjreme  prerogative,  she  directs  the  sun 
(surely  not  so  to  her  lord  and  master)  to  set,  and  he 
reluctantly  obeys  (II.  xviii,  239,  240).  Her  character 
has  not  any  pronounced  moral  elements ;  it  exhibits 
pride  and  passion ;  it  is  pervaded  intensely  with 
policy  and  nationalism  ;  she  is  beyond  all  others  the 
Achaian  goddess,  and  it  is  sarcastically  imputed  to 
her  by  Zeus  that  she  would  cut  the  Trojans  if  she 
could,  and  eat  them  without  requii'ing  in  the  first 
instance  any  culinary  process  (II.  iv,  35).  I  humbly 
protest  against  mauling  and  disfigiu'ing  this  work; 
against  what  great  Walter  Scott  would,  I  think,  have 
called  "  mashackering  and  mis  juggling  "  it,  after  the 
manner  of  Nicol  Muschat,  when  he  put  an  end  to  his 
wife  Ailie  (Heart  of  IMidlothian)  at  the  spot  afterward 
marked  by  his  name.  "Why  blur  the  picture  so 
charged  alike  with  imaginative  power  and  with  his- 
toric meaning,  by  the  violent  obtrusion  of  ideas, 
which,  whatever  force  they  may  have  had  among 
other  peoples  or  in  other  systems,  it  was  one  of  the 
main  piu'poses  of  Homer,  in  his  marvelous  theurgic 
work,  to  expel  from  all  high  place  in  the  order  of 


38  THE   oEDEK    OF    CREATION. 

ideas,  and  from  every  corner,  every  loft  and  every 
cellar,  so  to  speak,  of  liis  Olympian  palaces  ? 

If  the  Hera  of  Homer  is  to  own  a  relationship  out- 
side the  Achaian  system,  like  that  of  Apollo  to  the 
Sim,  it  is  undoubtedly  with  Gaia,  the  earth,  that  it 
can  be  most  easily  established.  The  all-producing 
function  of  Gaia  in  the  Theogony  of  Hesiod  (Theog. 
116-136)  and  her  marriage  with  Oui'anos,  the  heaven, 
who  has  a  partial  relation  to  Zeus,  jDoints  to  Hera  as 
the  majestic  successor  who  in  the  Olympian  scheme, 
as  the  great  mother  and  guardian  of  maternity,  bore 
an  analogical  resemblance  to  the  female  head  of  one 
or  more  of  the  Pelasgian  or  Achaic  theogonies  that 
it  had  deposed. 

I  have  now  done  with  the  treatment  of  details,  and 
I  must  not  quit  them  without  saying  that  there  axe 
some  of  the  chapters,  and  many  of  the  sentences,  of 
Dr.  Reville  which  appear  to  me  to  deserve  our  thanks. 
And  much  as  I  differ  from  him  concerning  an  essen- 
tial part  of  the  historic  basis  of  religion,  I  trust  that 
nothing  which  I  have  said  can  appear  to  impute  to 
him  any  hostility  or  indifference  to  the  substance  of 
rehgion  itself. 

I  make,  indeed,  no  question  that  the  solai'  theory 
has  a  most  important  place  in  solving  the  problems 
presented  by  many  or  some  of  the  Aryan  rehgions  ; 
but  whether  it  explains  their  first  inception  is  a 
totally  different  matter.  "When  it  is  ruthlessly  applied, 
in  the  teeth  of  evidence,  to  them  all,  in  the  last  resort 
it  stifles  facts,  and  reduces  observation  and  reasoning 
to  a  mockery.  Sir  George  Cox,  its  able  advocate, 
fastens  upon  the  admission  that  some  one  particular 
method  is  not  available  for  all  the  phenomena,  and 
asks,  Why  not  adopt  for  the  Greek  system,  for  the 


DA^VN    OF    CREATION    AND    OF    WORSHIP.  39 

Aryan  systems  at  lai-ge,  perhaps  for  a  still  wider 
range,  "  a  clear  and  simple  explanation,"  namely,  the 
solar  theory  (Mythology  of  Aryan  Nations,  i,  18)* 
The  plain  answer  to  the  question  is  that  this  must 
not  be  done,  because,  if  it  is  done,  we  do  not  follow 
the  facts,  nor  are  led  by  them ;  but  to  use  the  remai'k- 
able  phrase  of  ^schylus,  we  ride  them  down,  we 
trample  them  under  foot.  Mankind  has  long  been 
too  familiar  with  a  race  of  j)ractitioners,  whom  cour- 
tesy forbids  to  name,  and  whose  single  medicine  is 
alike  available  to  deal  with  every  one  of  the  thousand 
figiu'es  of  disease.  There  are  sui'ely  many  sources  to 
which  the  old  religions  are  referable.  We  have  solar 
worship,  earth  worship,  astronomic  worship,  the  wor- 
ship of  animals,  the  worship  of  evil  powers,  the 
worship  of  abstractions,  the  worship  of  the  dead,  the 
foul  and  polluting  worship  of  bodily  organs,  so  wide- 
spread in  the  world,  and  especially  in  the  East ;  last, 
but  not  least,  I  will  name  terminal  worship,  the 
remai'kable  and  most  important  scheme  which  grew 
up,  perhaps  first  on  the  Nile,  in  connection  with  the 
stones  used  for  marking  boundaries,  which  finds  its 
principal  representative  in  the  god  Hermes,  and 
which  is  very  lai'gely  traced  and  exhibited  in  the  first 
volume  of  the  work  of  M.  Dulaure  (Histoire  abregee 
de  differens  Cultes.  Seconde  edition.  Paris,  1825.) 
on  ancient  religions. 

But  none  of  these  circumstances  discredits  or  im- 
pairs the  proof  that  in  the  book,  of  which  Genesis  is 
the  opening  section,  there  is  conveyed  special  knowl- 
edge to  meet  the  special  need  everywhere  so  palpable 
in  the  state  and  history  of  our  race.  Far  indeed  am 
I  from  asserting  that  this  precious  gift,  or  that  any 
process  known  to  me,  disposes  of  all  the  problems, 


40  THE    ORDEE    OF    CREATION. 

either  insoluble  or  ixasolved,  by  which  we  are  sur- 
rounded; of 

4  the  burden  and  the  mystery 

Of  all  this  unintelligible  world. 

But  I  own  my  surprise  not  only  at  the  fact,  but  at 
the  manner  in  which  in  this  day,  writers,  whose 
name  is  legion,  unimpeached  in  character  and 
abounding  in  talent,  not  only  put  away  from  them, 
cast  into  a  shadow  or  into  the  very  gulf  of  negation 
itself,  the  conception  of  a  deity,  an  acting  and  a  rul- 
ing deity.  Of  this  belief,  which  has  satisfied  the 
doubts  and  wij)ed  away  the  tears,  and  found  guid- 
ance for  the  footstejDS  of  so  many  a  weary  wanderer 
on  earth,  which  among  the  best  and  greatest  of  oiu* 
race  has  been  so  cherished  by  those  who  had  it,  and 
so  longed  and  sought  for  by  those  who  had  it  not, 
we  might  suppose  that  if  at  length  we  had  discovered 
that  it  was  in  the  light  of  truth  untenable,  that  the 
accumulated  testimony  of  man  was  worthless,  and 
that  his  wisdom  was  but  folly,  yet  at  least  the  decen- 
cies of  moui'ning  would  be  vouchsafed  to  this  irre- 
parable loss.  Instead  of  this,  it  is  with  a  joy  and 
exultation  that  might  almost  recall  the  frantic  orgies 
of  the  Commune,  that  this,  at  least  at  fii'st  sight,  ter- 
rific and  overwhelming  calamity  is  accepted,  and  re- 
corded as  a  gain.  One  recent,  and  in  many  ways 
respected  writer  —  a  woman  long  wont  to  unshiiD 
creed  as  sailors  discharge  excess  of  cargo  in  a  storm, 
and  passing  at  length  into  formal  Atheism — rejoices 
to  find  herself  on  the  open,  free,  and  "breezy  com- 
mon of  humanity."  Another,  also  a  woman,*  and 
dealing  only  with  the  workings  and  manifestations  of 

*  I  do  not  quote  names,  but  I  refer  to  a  very  recent  article 
in  one  of  our  monthly  periodicals. 


DAWN  OF  CEEATIOX  AND  OF  WORSHIP.       41 

God,  finds  in  the  theory  of  a  physical  evolution  as 
recently  developed  by  Mi\  Darv\^in,  and  received  with 
extensive  favor,  both  an  emancipation  from  error  and 
a  novelty  in  kind.  She  rejoices  to  think  that  now 
at  last  Dai'win  "  shows  life  as  a  harmonious  whole, 
and  makes  the  future  stride  possible  by  the  past 
advance."  Evolution,  that  is,  physical  evolution, 
which  alone  is  in  view,  may  be  true  (like  the  solar 
theory),  may  be  delightful  and  wonderful,  in  its  right 
l^lace  ;  but  are  we  really  to  understand  that  varieties 
of  animals  brought  about  thi-ough  domestication,  the 
wasting  of  organs  (for  instance,  the  tails  of  men)  by 
disuse,  that  natural  selection  and  the  siu'vival  of  the 
fittest,  all  in  the  physical  order,  exhibit  to  us  the 
great  ai'canuni  of  creation,  the  sun  and  center  of  life, 
so  that  mind  and  spirit  are  dethi'oned  from  their  old 
supremacy,  are  no  longer  sovereign  by  right,  but  may 
find  somewhere  by  charity  a  placed  assigned  them, 
as  appendages,  perhaps  only  as  excrescences,  of  the 
material  creation  ?  I  contend  that  evolution  in  its 
highest  form  has  not  been  a  thing  heretofore  unknown 
to  history,  to  philosophy,  or  to  theology.  I  contend 
that  it  was  before  the  mind  of  St.  Paul  when  he 
taught  that  in  the  fulness  of  time  God  sent  forth  his 
son,  and  of  Eusebius,  when  he  wrote  the  "  Prepara- 
tion for  the  Gospel,"  and  of  Augustine,  when  he 
composed  the  "  City  of  God ;  "  and,  beautiful  and 
splendid  as  are  the  lessons  taught  by  natural  objects, 
they  are,  for  Chiistendom  at  least,  indefinitely  beneath 
the  sublime  unfolding  of  the  great  drama  of  human 
action,  in  which,  through  long  ages,  Greece  was 
making  ready  a  language  and  an  intellectual  type, 
and  Rome  a  framework  of  order  and  an  idea  of  law, . 
such  that  in  them  were  to  be  shaped  and  fashioned 


42  THE    OEDER    OF    CREATION. 

the  destinies  of  a  regenerated  world.  For  those  who 
believe  that  the  old  foundations  are  unshaken  still, 
and  that  the  fabric  built  upon  them  will  look  down 
for  ages  on  the  floating  wreck  of  many  a  modem  and 
boastful  theory,  it  is  difficult  to  see  anything  but  in- 
fatuation in  the  destructive  temperament  which  leads 
to  the  notion  that  to  substitute  a  blind  mechanism 
for  the  hand  of  God  in  the  affair's  of  life  is  to  enlarge 
the  scope  of  remedial  agency ;  that  to  dismiss  the 
highest  of  all  inspii-ations  is  to  elevate  the  strain  of 
human  thought  and  life ;  and  that  each  of  us  is  to 
rejoice  that  our  several  units  are  to  be  disintegrated 
at  death  into  "  cotmtless  millions  of  organisms;"  for 
such,  it  seems,  is  the  latest  "  revelation "  dehvered 
from  the  fragile  tripod  of  a  modern  Delphi.  Assuredly 
on  the  minds  of  those  who  believe,  or  else  on  the 
minds  of  those  who  after  this  fashion  disbeUeve,  there 
lies  some  deep  judicial  darkness,  a  darkness  that  may 
be  felt.  While  disbelief  in  the  eyes  of  faith  is  a  sore 
calamity,  this  kind  of  disbelief,  which  renounces  and 
repudiates  with  more  than  satisfaction  what  is 
brightest  and  best  in  the  inheritance  of  man,  is 
astounding,  and  might  be  deemed  incredible.  Nay, 
some  will  say,  rather  than  accept  the  flimsy  and 
hollow  consolations  which  it  makes  bold  to  offer, 
might  we  not  go  back  to  solar  adoration,  or,  with 
Goethe,  to  the  hollows  of  Olympus "? 
Wenu  die  Funke  spriilit, 
Weun  die  Asclie  gliilit, 
Eilen  wir  den  alten  Gottern  zu.  * 

W.  E.  Gladstone. 

♦Literally: 

When  the  sparkles  flow, 

When  the  ashes  glow, 

Hasten  we  the  olden  gods  unto.  —Bride  of  Cwinth. 


THE    INTERPRETERS  OF    GENESIS  AND   THE 
INTERPRETERS   OF  NATURE. 

A  EEPLY    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE'S    "  DAWN    OF    CREATION    AND    OF 
WORSHIP." 

BY   PROF.   T.  H.  HUXLEY. 

Our  fabulist  warns  "  those  who  in  quarrels  inter- 
pose" of  the  fate  which  is  probably  in  store  for  them; 
and,  in  venturing  to  place  myself  between  so  power- 
ful a  controversialist  as  Mr.  Gladstone  and  the  emi- 
nent divine  whom  he  assaults  with  such  vigor  in  the 
last  number  of  this  Heoieio,  I  am  fully  aware  that  I 
run  great  danger  of  verifying  Gay's  prediction. 
Moreover,  it  is  quite  possible  that  my  zeal  in  offering 
aid  to  a  combatant  so  extremely  well  able  to  take 
care  of  himself  as  M.  Reville  may  be  thought  to 
savor  of  indiscretion. 

Two  considerations,  however,  have  led  me  to  face 
the  double  risk.  The  one  is  that  though,  in  my 
judgment,  M.  Reville  is  wholly  in  the  right  in  that 
pai't  of  the  controversy  to  which  I  propose  to  restrict 
my  observations,  nevertheless,  he,  as  a  foreigner,  has 
very  httle  chance  of  making  the  truth  prevail  with 
Englishmen  against  the  authority  and  the  dialectic 
skill  of  the  gTeatest  master  of  persuasive  rhetoric 
among  Enghsh- speaking  men  of  oiu-  time.  As  the 
queen's  proctor  intervenes,  in  certain  cases,  between 
two  litigants  ra  the  interests  of  justice,  so  it  may  be 
permitted  me  to  interj^ose  as  a  sort  of  uncommis- 
sioned science  j)i'octor.     My  second  excuse  for  my 


44  THE    INTERPRETEKS    OF    GEISTESIS 

meddlesomeness  is  that  important  questions  of  nat- 
ui'al  science — respecting  whicli  neither  of  tlie  combat- 
ants professes  to  speak  as  an  expert — are  involved  in 
the  controversy ;  and  I  think  it  is  desirable  that  the 
pubhc  should  know  what  it  is  that  natural  science 
really  has  to  say  on  these  toj)ics,  to  the  best  belief  of 
one  who  has  been  a  diligent  student  of  natm-al 
science  for  the  last  forty  yeai's. 

The  original  Prole,gomhies  de  I'histoire  des  Relig- 
ions has  not  come  in  my  way;  but  I  have  read  the 
translation  of  M.  Reville's  work,  published  in  Eng- 
land imder  the  auspices  of  Prof.  Max  Miiller,  with 
very  great  interest.  It  puts  more  fau'ly  and  clearly 
than  any  book  previously  known  to  me  the  view 
which  a  man  of  strong  religious  feelings,  but  at  the 
same  time  possessing  the  information  and  the  reason- 
ing power  which  enable  him  to  estimate  the  strength 
of  scientific  methods  of  inqmiy,  and  the  weight  of 
scientific  truth,  may  be  expected  to  take  of  the  rela- 
tion between  science  and  religion. 

In  the  chajDter  on  "The  Primitive  Revelation,"  the 
scientific  worth  of  the  account  of  creation  given  in 
the  book  of  Genesis  is  estimated  in  terms  which  are 
as  unquestionably  respectful  as,  in  my  judgment, 
they  are  just;  and,  at  the  end  of  the  chaj)ter  on 
"  Primitive  Tradition,"  M.  Reville  appraises  the  value 
of  pentateuchal  anthropology  in  a  way  which  I  should 
have  thought  sure  of  enhsting  the  assent  of  all  com- 
l^etent  judges,  even  if  it  were  extended  to  the  whole 
of  the  cosmogony  and  biology  of  Genesis : 

As,  however,  the  original  traditions  of  nations  sprang  up 
in  an  epoch  less  remote  than  our  own  from  the  primitive  life, 
it  is  indispensable  to  consult  them,  to  compare  them,  and  to 
associate  them  with  other  sources  of  information  which  are 


AKD    THE    INTEBPRETERS    OF    NATURE.  45 

available.  From  this  point  of  view,  the  traditions  recorded 
in  Genesis  possess,  in  addition  to  their  own  peculiar  charm, 
a  value  of  the  highest  order ;  but  we  cannot  ultimately  see 
in  them  more  than  a  venerable  fragment,  well  deserving  at- 
tention, of  the  great  genesis  of  mankind. 

Mi\  Gladstone  is  of  a  different  mind.  He  dissents 
from  M.  Eeville's  views  respecting  the  proper  estima- 
tion of  the  pentateuchal  traditions  no  less  than  he 
does  from  his  interpretation  of  those  Homeric  myths 
which  have  been  the  object  of  his  own  special  study. 
In  the  latter  case,  Mr.  Gladstone  tells  M.  Reville  that 
he  is  wrong  on  his  own  authority,  to  which,  in  such 
a  matter,  all  will  pay  due  respect ;  in  the  former,  he 
affirms  himself  to  be  "wholly  destitute  of  that  kind 
of  knowledge  which  carries  authority,"  and  his  rebuke 
is  administered  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of 
natural  science. 

An  ail'  of  magisterial  gravity  hangs  about  the  fol- 
lowing passage : 

But  the  question  is  not  here  of  a  lofty  poem,  or  a  skilfully 
constructed  narrative;  it  is  whether  natural  science,  in  the 
patient  exercise  of  its  high  calling  to  examine  facts,  finds  that 
the  works  of  God  cry  out  against  what  we  have  fondly  be- 
lieved to  be  his  word,  and  tell  another  tale ;  or  whether,  in 
this  nineteenth  century  of  Christian  progress,  it  substantially 
echoes  back  the  majestic  sound,  which,  before  it  existed  as  a 
pursuit,  went  forth  into  all  lands. 

First,  looking  largely  at  the  latter  portion  of  the  narrative, 
which  describes  the  creation  of  living  organisms,  and  waiv- 
ing details,  on  some  of  which  (as  in  verse  24)  the  Septuagint 
seems  to  vary  from  the  Hebrew,  there  is  a  grand  fourfold 
division,  set  forth  in  an  orderly  succession  of  times  as 
follows :  on  the  fifth  day. 

1.  The  water-population, 

2.  The  air-population, 
and,  on  the  sixth  day. 


46  THE    INTEEtEETEES    OF    GENESIS 

3.  The  land-population  of  animals, 
■  4.  The  land-population  consummated  in  man. 

Now  this  same  fourfold  order  is  understood  to  have  been  so 
affirmed  in  our  time  by  natural  science  that  it  may  be  taken 
as  a  demonstrated  conclusion  and  established  fact  (p.  696). 

"Understood?"  By  wliom?  I  cannot  bring  my- 
self to  imagine  that  Mr.  Gladstone  has  made  so  solemn 
and  authoritative  a  statement  on  a  matter  of  this  im- 
portance without  due  inquhy — without  being  able  to 
found  himself  uj)on  recognized  scientific  authority. 
But  I  wish  he  had  thought  fit  to  name  the  soui'ce 
from  whence  he  has  derived  his  information,  as  in 
that  case  I  could  have  dealt  with  his  authority,  and  I 
should  have  thereby  escaped  the  appeai'ance  of  making 
an  attack  on  Mr.  Gladstone  himself,  which  is  in  every 
way  distasteful  to  me. 

For  I  can  meet  the  statement  in  the  last  paragraph 
of  the  above  citation  with  nothing  but  a  direct  nega- 
tive. If  I  know  anything  at  all  about  the  results 
attained  by  the  natui'al  science  of  our  time,  it  is  "  a 
demonstrated  conclusion  and  established  fact "  that 
the  "foui'fold  order"  given  by  Mr.  Gladstone  is  not 
that  in  which  the  evidence  at  our  clisposal  tends  to 
show  that  the  water,  au",  and  land  populations  of  the 
globe  have  made  theu*  appearance. 

Pei'haps  I  may  be  told  that  Mr.  Gladstone  does  give 
his  authority — that  he  cites  Cuvier,  Sir  John  Her- 
schel,  and  Dr.  "Whewell  in  support  of  his  case.  If 
that  has  been  Mi\  Gladstone's  intention  in  mention- 
ing these  eminent  names,  I  may  remark  that,  on  this 
particular  question,  the  only  relevant  authority  is 
that  of  Cuvier.  But,  great  as  Cuvier  was,  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that,  as  Mi-.  Gladstone  incidentally  re- 
marks, he  cannot  now  be  called  a  recent  authority. 


AND    THE    INTERPRETERS    OI"    NATURE.  47 

In  fact,  he  has  been  dead  more  than  half  a  century, 
and  the  paleontology  of  oxu-  day  is  related  to  that  of 
his  very  much  as  the  geography  of  the  sixteenth 
century  is  related  to  that  of  the  fourteenth.  Since 
1832,  when  Cuvier  died,  not  only  a  new  world,  but 
new  worlds,  of  ancient  life  have  been  discovered ;  and 
those  who  have  most  faithfully  carried  on  the  work  of 
the  chief  founder  of  paleontology  have  done  most  to 
invaUdate  the  essentially  negative  grounds  of  his  spec- 
ulative adherence  to  tradition. 

If  Mr.  Gladstone's  latest  information  on  these  mat- 
ters is  derived  from  the  famous  discourse  prefixed  to 
the  Ossemens  JFossiles,  I  can  understand  the  position 
he  has  taken  up ;  if  he  has  ever  opened  a  respectable 
modern  manual  of  paleontology  or  geology,  I  cannot. 
For  the  facts  which  demolish  his  whole  argument  are 
of  the  commonest  notoriety.  But  before  proceeding 
to  consider  the  evidence  for  this  assertion  we  must 
be  clear  about  the  meaning  of  the  phraseology  em- 
ployed. 

I  apprehend  that  when  Mx.  Gladstone  uses  the 
term  "  water-population "  he  means  those  animals 
wliich  in  Genesis  i,  21  (Revised  Version)  are  spoken 
of  as  "  the  great  sea  monsters  and  every  living  creat- 
ui'e  that  moveth,  which  the  waters  brought  forth 
abundantly,  after  their  kind."  And  I  presmne  that  it 
will  be  agreed  that  whales  and  j)orpoises,  sea  fishes, 
and  the  innumerable  hosts  of  marine  invertebrated 
animals,  are  meant  thereby.  So  "  au' -population " 
must  be  the  equivalent  of  "  fowl "  in  verse  20,  and 
"  every  winged  fowl  after  its  kind,"  verse  21.  I  sup- 
pose I  may  take  it  for  granted  that  by  "  fowl"  we 
have  here  to  understand  bu'ds — at  any  rate,  primarily. 
Secondarily,  it  may  be  that  bats,  and  the  extinct  pter- 


48  THE    INTEKPEETEEj    OF    GENESIS 

odactyles,  which  were  flying  reptiles,  come  vmder  the 
same  head.  But  whether  all  insects  are  "creeping 
things"  of  the  land-population,  or  whether  flying 
insects  are  to  be  included  under  the  denomination  of 
"  winged  fowl,"  is  a  point  for  the  decision  of  Hebrew 
exegetes.  Lastly,  I  supjDOse  I  may  assume  that 
"land-population"  signifies  "the  cattle"  and  "the 
beast  of  the  earth,"  and  "  every  creeping  thing  that 
creepeth  upon  the  earth,"  in  verses  25  and  26  ;  pre- 
sumably it  comprehends  all  kinds  of  terrestrial  ani- 
mals, vertebrate  and  invertebrate,  except  such  as  may 
be  comprised  under  the  head  of  the  "  au--population." 

Now,  what  I  want  to  make  cleai*  is  this,  that  if  the 
terms,  "  water-population,"  "  au--population,"  and 
"  land-population,"  are  understood  in  the  senses  here 
defined,  natural  science  has  nothing  to  say  in  favor 
of  the  proposition  that  they  succeeded  one  another 
in  the  order  given  by  Mi*.  Gladstone ;  but  that,  on 
the  contrai'y,  all  the  evidence  we  possess  goes  to 
prove  that  they  did  not.  Whence  it  will  follow  that, 
if  Mr.  Gladstone  has  interpreted  Genesis  rightly  (on 
which  point  I  am  most  anxious  to  be  understood  to 
offer  no  oj)inion),  that  interpretation  is  wholly  irrec- 
oncilable with  the  conclusions  at  present  accepted  by 
the  interpreters  of  natiu'e — with  everything  that  can 
be  called  "  a  demonstrated  conclusion  and  estab- 
Hshed  fact "  of  natural  science.  And  be  it  observed 
that  I  am  not  here  dealing  with  a  question  of  specu- 
lation, but  with  a  question  of  fact. 

Either  the  geological  record  is  sufficiently  com- 
plete to  afford  us  a  means  of  determining  the  order 
in  which  animals  have  made  their  appearance  on  the 
globe  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is,  the  determination  of  that 
order  is  little  more  than  a  mere  matter  of  observa- 


AND    THE    INTEEPKETEES    OF    NATTJEE. 


49 


tion;  if  it  is  not,  then  natui'al  science  neither  affirms 
nor  refutes  the  "foiu'fold  order,"  but  is  simply  silent, 
The  series  of  the  fossiliferous  deposits,  which  con- 
tain the  remains  of  the  animals  which  have  lived  on 
the  earth  in  past  ages  of  its  history,  and  which  can 
alone  aiford  the  evidence  required  by  natui-al  science 
of  the  order  of  ajipeai-ance  of  their  different  si^ecies, 
may  be  grouped  in  the  manner  shown  ia  the  left-hand 
column  of  the  following  table,  the  oldest  being  at  the 
bottom : 


FORMATIONS. 


FIRST  KNOWN  APPEARANCE  OF 


Quaternary. 

Pliocene. 

Miocene. 

Eocene. 

Cretaceous. 

Jurassic. 

Triassic. 

Upper  Paleozoic. 

Middle  Paleozoic. 

Lower  Paleozoic. 

Silurian. 


Cambrian. 


Vertebrate  air-population  (bats). 

Vertebrate  air-population  (birds  and  pter- 
odactyles). 

Vertebrate  land-population  (amphibia, 
reptilia[?'\) . 

Vertebrate  water-population  (fishes). 

Invertebrate  air  and  laud  population  (fly- 
ing insects  and  scorpions). 

Invertebrate  water-population  (much  ear- 
lier, if  eozoon  is  animal). 


In  the  right-hand  column  I  have  noted  the  group 
of  strata  in  which,  according  to  our  present  informa- 
tion, the  land,  air,  and  %cater  populations  appear  for 
the  first  time ;  and,  in  consequence  of  the  ambiguity 
about  the  meaning  of  "fowl,"  I  have  separately  indi- 
cated the  first  appeai'ance  of  bats,  buds,  flying  rep- 
tUes,  and  flying  insects.  It  will  be  observed  that,  if 
"  fowl "  means  only  "  bird,"  or  at  most  flying  verte- 
brate, then  the  fii'st  certain  evidence  of  the  latter,  in 
the  Jiu-assic  epoch,  is  posterior  to  the  first  appear- 
ance of  truly  teiTestrial  amphibia,  and  posslby  of  true 


50  THE  INTERPRETEKS  OF  GENESIS 

reptiles,  in  the  Carboniferous  epoch  (Middle  Paleo- 
zoic) by  a  prodigious  interval  of  time. 

The  water-population  of  vertebrated  animals  first 
appeal's  in  the  Uj)per  Silurian.  Therefore,  if  we 
found  ourselves  on  vertebrated  animals,  and  take 
"  fowl "  to  mean  birds  only,  or  at  most  flying  verte- 
brates, nattu'al  science  says  that  the  order  of  succes- 
sion was  water,  land,  and  air-population,  and  not — as 
Ml'.  Gladstone,  founding  himself  on  Genesis,  says — 
water,  air,  land-population.  If  a  chronicler  of  Greece 
affirmed  that  the  age  of  Alexander  preceded  that  of 
Pericles,  and  immediately  succeeded  that  of  the  Tro- 
jan war.  Ml'.  Gladstone  would  hai'dly  say  that  this 
order  is  "understood  to  have  been  so  affirmed  by  his- 
torical science  that  it  may  be  taken  as  a  demonstrated 
conclusion  and  established  fact."  Yet  natural  sci- 
ence "affirms"  his  "four-fold  order"  to  exactly  the 
same  extent — neither  more  nor  less. 

Suppose,  however,  that  "  fowl "  is  to  be  taken  to 
include  flying  insects.  In  that  case  the  first  appear- 
ance of  an  air-population  must  be  shifted  back  for 
long  ages,  recent  discovery  having  shown  that  they 
occur  in  rocks  of  Silurian  age.  Hence  there  might 
still  have  been  hope  for  the  f om'f old  order  were  it  not 
that  the  fates  unkindly  determined  that  scorpions — 
"  creeping  things  that  creep  on  the  earth  "  par  excel- 
lence— turned  up  in  Silui'ian  strata  nearly  at  the  same 
time.  So  that  if  the  word  in  the  original  Hebrew 
translated  "fowl"  should  really  after  all  mean  "cock- 
roach " — and  I  have  great  faith  in  the  elasticity  of  that 
tongue  in  the  hands  of  bibhcal  exegetes — the  order 
primarily  suggested  by  the  existing  evidence  : 
2.  Land  and  air-population, 
1.  Water-population, 


AND  THE  INTEEPKETEKS  OF  NATUEE.        61 

and  Mr.  Gladstone's  order: 

3.  Land-population, 
2.  Air-popnlation, 
1.  Water-population, 

can  by  no  means  be  made  to  coincide.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  then,  the  statement  so  confidently  j^ut  for- 
ward turns  out  to  be  devoid  of  foundation  and  ia 
direct  contradiction  of  the  evidence  at  present  at  our 
disposal.* 

If,  stepping  beyond  that  which  may  be  learned  from 
the  facts  of  the  successive  appearance  of  the  forms  of 
animal  life  upon  the  surface  of  the  globe,  in  so  far 
as  they  are  yet  made  known  to  us  by  natural  science, 
we  apply  our  reasoning  faculties  to  the  task  of  find- 
ing out  what  those  observed  facts  mean,  the  present 
conclusions  of  the  interpreters  of  nature  appear  to  be 
no  less  dii'ectly  in  conflict  with  those  of  the  latest  in- 
terpreters of  Genesis. 


*  It  may  be  objected  that  I  have  not  put  the  case  fairly,  in- 
asmiich  as  the  solitary  insect's  wing  which  was  discovered 
twelve  months  ago  in  Silurian  rocks,  and  which  is  at  present 
the  sole  evidence  of  insects  older  than  the  Devonian  epoch, 
came  from  strata  of  Middle  Silurian  age,  and  is  therefore 
older  than  the  scorpions  which  within  the  last  two  years  have 
been  found  in  Upper  Silurian  strata  in  Sweden,  Britain,  and 
the  United  States.  But  no  one  who  comprehends  the  nature 
of  the  evidence  afforded  by  fossil  remains  would  venture  to 
say  that  the  non-discovery  of  scorpions  in  the  Middle  Silurian 
strata  up  to  this  time  affords  any  more  ground  for  supposing 
that  they  did  not  exist  than  the  non-discovery  of  flying  in- 
sects in  the  Upper  Silurian  strata  up  to  this  time  throws  any 
doubt  on  the  certainty  that  they  existed,  wiiich  is  derived 
from  the  occurrence  of  the  wing  in  the  Middle  Silurian.  In 
fact,  I  have  stretched  a  point  in  admitting  that  these  fossils 
afford  a  colorable  pretext  for  the  assumption  that  the  land 
and  aix-population  were  of  contemporaneous  origin. 


52  THE    INTEEPKETEKS    OF    GENESIS 

Mi\  Gladstone  appears  to  admit  that  there  is  some 
truth  in  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  and  indeed  places  it 
under  very  high  patronage  : 

I  contend  that  evolution  in  its  highest  form  has  not  been  a 
thing  iieretofore  unlvnowu  to  history,  to  philosophy,  or  to  the- 
ology. I  contend  that  it  was  before  the  mind  of  St.  Paul 
when  he  taught  that  in  the  fulness  of  time  God  sent  forth  his 
son,  and  of  Eusebius,  when  he  wrote  the  "  Preparation  for 
the  Gospel,"  and  of  Augustine  when  he  composed  the  "  City 
of  God "  (p.  706). 

Has  any  one  ever  disputed  the  contention  thus 
solemnly  enunciated  that  the  doctrine  of  evolution  was 
not  invented  the  day  before  yesterday  T  Has  any  one 
ever  dreamed  of  claiming  it  as  a  modern  innovation  ? 
Is  there  any  one  so  ignorant  of  the  history  of  phi- 
losophy as  to  be  unaware  that  it  is  one  of  the  forms 
in  which  speculation  embodied  itself  long  before  the 
time  either  of  the  BishojD  of  Hippo  or  the  AjDOstle  to 
the  Gentiles  ?  Is  Mr.  Gladstone,  of  all  people  in  the 
w^orld,  dis^DOsed  to  ignore  the  founders  of  Greek  phi- 
losophy, to  say  nothing  of  Indian  sages  to  whom  evo- 
lution was  a  familiar  notion  ages  before  Paul  of  Tar- 
sus was  born  ?  Bu.t  it  is  ungrateful  to  cavil  at  even 
the  most  oblique  admission  of  the  possible  value  of 
one  of  those  affirmations  of  natural  science  which 
really  may  be  said  to  be  "a  demonstrated  conclusion 
and  established  fact."  I  note  it  with  pleasure,  if  only 
for  the  pui'pose  of  introducing  the  observation  that 
if  there  is  any  truth  whatever  in  the  doctrine  of  evo- 
lution as  applied  to  animals,  IVIi-.  Gladstone's  gloss  on 
Genesis  in  the  following  passage  is  hardly  happy : 
God  created — 

(a)  The  water-population; 

(b)  The  air-population. 


AND    THE    INTEEPRETEKS    OF    NATURE.  53 

And  they  receive  his  benediction  (verses  20-23). 

Pursuing  this  regular  progression  from  the  lower  to  the 
higher,  from  the  simple  to  the  complex,  the  text  now  gives  us 
the  work  of  the  sixth  "  day,"  which  supplies  the  land  popu- 
lation, air  and  water  having  been  already  supplied  (pp.  695, 
696). 

The  gloss  to  which  I  refer  is  the  assumption  that 
the  "  au'-population "  forms  a  term  in  the  order  of 
progression  from  lower  to  higher,  from  simple  to 
complex — the  place  of  which  lies  between  the  water- 
population  below  and  the  land-population  above — and 
I  speak  of  it  as  a  "  gloss  "  because  the  pentateuchal 
wiiter  is  nowise  responsible  for  it. 

But  it  is  not  true  that  the  air-population,  as  a 
whole,  is  "  lower  "  or  less  "  complex  "  than  the  land- 
l^opulation.  On  the  contrary,  every  beginner  ia  the 
study  of  animal  morphology  is  aware  that  the  organ- 
ization of  a  bat,  of  a  bird,  or  of  a  pterodactyle,  pre- 
supposes that  of  a  terrestrial  quadi-uped,  and  that  it 
is  intelligible  only  as  an  extreme  modification  of  the 
organization  of  a  terrestrial  mammal  or  reptile.  In 
the  same  way,  winged  insects  (if  they  are  to  be 
counted  among  the  "air-population")  presuppose  in- 
sects which  were  wingless,  and  therefore,  as  "  creep- 
ing things,"  were  part  of  the  land-population.  Thus 
theory  is  as  much  opposed  as  observation  to  the  ad- 
mission that  natural  science  indorses  the  succession 
of  animal  life  which  Mr.  Gladstone  finds  in  Genesis. 
On  the  contrary,  a  good  many  representatives  of  nat- 
ui'al  science  would  be  prepared  to  say,  on  theoretical 
grounds  alone,  that  it  is  incredible  that  the  "air- 
population  "  should  have  appeai'ed  before  the  "  land- 
population,"  and  that  if  this  assertion  is  to  be  found 


54  THE  INTERPEETERS  OF  GENESIS 

in    Genesis,   it   merely   demonstrates   the   scientific 
worthlessness  of  the  story  of  which  it  forms  a  part. 

Indeed,  we  may  go  further.  It  is  not  even  admis- 
sible to  say  that  the  water-population,  as  a  whole,  ap- 
peared before  the  air  and  the  land-populations.  Ac- 
cording to  the  authorized  version,  Genesis  especially 
mentions  among  the  the  animals  created  on  the  fifth 
day  "  great  whales,"  in  place  of  which  the  revised 
version  reads  "  great  sea  monsters."  Far  be  it  from 
me  to  give  an  opinion  which  rendeiing  is  right,  or 
whether  either  is  right.  All  I  desire  to  remark  is, 
that  if  whales  andpoi-poises,dugongs  and.manatees,  are 
to  be  regarded  as  members  of  the  water-population 
(and  if  they  are  not,  what  animals  can  claim  the 
designation?),  then  that  much  of  the  water-popula- 
tion has  as  certainly  originated  later  than  the  land- 
population  as  bats  and  birds  have.  For  I  am  not 
aware  that  any  competent  judge  would  hesitate  to 
admit  that  the  organization  of  these  animals  shows 
the  most  obvious  signs  of  their  descent  from  ten-est- 
rial  quadi'upeds. 

A  similar  criticism  appUes  to  IMi*.  Gladstone's  as- 
sumption that,  as  the  fourth  act  of  that  "  orderly  suc- 
cession of  times,"  enunciated  in  Genesis,  "  the  land- 
population  consummated  in  man." 

If  this  means  simply  that  man  is  the  final  term  in 
the  evolutional  series  of  which  he  forms  a  part,  I  do  not 
suppose  that  any  objection  will  be  raised  to  that  state- 
ment on  the  part  of  students  of  natural  science.  But 
if  the  pentateuchal  author  goes  f ai'ther  than  this,  and 
intends  to  say  that  which  is  ascribed  to  him  by  Mr. 
Gladstone,  I  think  natural  science  will  have  to  enter  a 
caveat.  It  is  not  by  any  means  certain  that  man — I 
mean  the  species  Homo  sapiens  of  zoological  termi- 


AND  THE  INTEEPEETEES  OF  NATUEE.        55 

nology — has  "consummated"  the  land-population  in 
the  sense  of  appearing  at  a  later  period  of  time  than 
any  other.  Let  me  make  my  meaning  clear  by  an  ex- 
ample. From  a  morphological  point  of  view,  our 
beautiful  and  useful  contemporary — I  might  call  him 
colleague — the  horse  {Equus  caballus),  is  the  last  term 
of  the  evolutional  series  to  which  he  belongs,  just  as 
Homo  sapiens  is  the  last  term  of  the  series  of  which 
he  is  a  member.  If  I  want  to  know  whether  the 
species  Equus  caballus  made  its  appearance  on  the 
surface  of  the  globe  before  or  after  Homo  sapiens, 
deduction  from  known  law  does  not  help  me.  There 
is  no  reason  that  I  know  of  why  one  should  have  ap- 
peared sooner  or  later  than  the  other.  If  I  tirni  to 
observation,  I  find  abundant  remains  of  Equus  cabal- 
lus in  Quaternary  strata,  perhaps  a  little  earher.  The 
existence  of  Homo  sapiens  in  the  Quaternary  epoch 
is  also  cert;3in.  Evidence  has  been  adduced  in  favor 
of  man's  existence  in  the  Pliocene,  or  even  in  the 
Miocene  epoch.  It  does  not  satisfy  me ;  but  I  have 
no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  fact  may  be  so,  nevei'the- 
less.  Indeed,  I  think  it  is  quite  possible  that  further 
research  will  show  that  Horno  sapiens  existed,  not 
only  before  Equus  caballus,  but  before  many  other 
of  the  existing  forms  of  animal  life ;  so  that,  if  all  the 
species  of  animals  have  been  separately  created,  man, 
in  this  case,  would  by  no  means  be  the  "  consumma- 
tion "  of  the  land-population. 

I  am  raising  no  objection  to  the  position  of  the 
fourth  term  in  Mi-.  Gladstone's  "  order " — on  the 
facts,  as  they  stand,  it  is  quite  open  to  anyone  to 
hold,  as  a  jjious  opinion,  that  the  fabrication  of  man 
was  the  acme  and  final  achievement  of  the  process  of 
peopling  the  globe.     But  it  must  not  be  said  that 


56  THE    INTERPEETERS    OF    GENESIS 

natural  science  counts  tliis  opinion  among  her 
"demonstrated  conclusions  and  estabKshed  facts," 
for  there  would  be  just  as  much,  or  as  httle,  reason 
for  ranging  the  contraiy  opinion  among  them. 

It  may  seem  suj)erfluous  to  add  to  the  evidence 
that  Ml'.  Gladstone  has  been  utterly  misled  in  sup- 
posing that  his  interpretation  of  Genesis  receives  any 
support  from  natvu-al  science.  But  it  is  as  well  to  do 
one's  work  thoroughly  while  one  is  about  it;  and  I 
bhink  it  may  be  advisable  to  point  out  that  the  facts, 
as  they  are  at  present  kaown,  not  only  refute  Mr. 
Gladstone's  interpretation  of  Genesis  in  detail,  but 
are  opposed  to  the  central  idea  on  which  it  appears 
to  be  based. 

There  must  be  some  position  from  which  the  rec- 
oncilers of  science  and  Genesis  will  not  retreat,  some 
central  idea  the  maintenance  of  which  is  vital  and  its 
refutation  fatal.  Even  if  they  now  allow  that  the 
words  "  the  evening  and  the  morning  "  have  not  the 
least  reference  to  a  natiu'al  day,  but  mean  a  period  of 
any  number  of  millions  of  years  that  may  be  neces- 
sary ;  even  if  they  are  di'iven  to  admit  that  the  word 
"  creation,"  which  so  many  millions  of  pious  Jews 
and  Chiistians  have  held,  and  still  hold,  to  mean  a 
sudden  act  of  the  deity,  signifies  a  process  of  gradual 
evolution  of  one  species  from  another,  extending 
through  immeasurable  time ;  even  if  they  are  willing 
to  grant  that  the  asserted  coincidence  of  the  order  of 
nature  with  the  "fourfold  order"  ascribed  to  Genesis 
is  an  obvious  error  instead  of  an  established  truth — 
they  are  sui'ely  prepared  to  make  a  last  stand  upon 
the  conception  which  underlies  the  whole,  and  which 
constitutes  the  essence  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  "four-fold 
division,  set  forth  in  an  orderly  succession  of  times." 


AND  THE  INTERPKETEES  OF  NATURE.        57 

It  is,  that  the  animal  species  which  compose  the 
water-population,  the  aii'-poptilation,  and  the  land- 
population,  respectively,  originated  diu'ing  thi-ee  dis- 
tinct and  successive  periods  of  time,  and  only  during 
those  periods  of  time. 

This  statement  appears  to  me  to  be  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Genesis  which  MJr.  Gladstone  supports,  re- 
duced to  its  simplest  expression.  "  Period  of  time" 
is  substituted  for  "  day ;"  "  originated "  is  substi- 
tuted for  "  created ;"  and  any  order  required  for  that 
adopted  by  Mi'.  Gladstone.  It  is  necessary  to  make 
this  proviso,  for  if  "day"  may  mean  a  few  million 
yeai's,  and  "  creation  "  may  mean  evolution,  then  it  is 
obvious  that  the  order  (1)  water-population,  (2) 
au*-population,  (3)  land-population,  may  also  meart 
(1)  water-pojDulation,  (2)  land-population,  (3)  air-pop- 
ulation; and  it  would  be  unkind  to  bind  down  the 
reconcilers  to  this  detail  when  one  has  parted  with  so 
many  others  to  oblige  them. 

But  even  this  sublimated  essence  of  the  penta- 
teuchal  doctrine  (if  it  be  such)  remains  as  discordant 
with  natural  science  as  ever. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  species  composing  any  one 
of  the  thi'ee  populations  originated  during  any  one  of 
three  successive  periods  of  time,  and  not  at  any  other 
of  these. 

Undoubtedly,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable 
that  animal  life  appeared  first  under  aquatic  condi- 
tions ;  that  ten-estrial  forms  appeared  later,  and  flying 
animals  only  after  land  animals ;  but  it  is,  at  the  same 
time,  testified  by  all  the  evidence  we  possess  that  the 
great  majority,  if  not  the  whole,  of  the  primordial 
species  of  each  division  have  long  since  died  out  and 
have  been  replaced  by  a  vast  succession  of  new  forms. 


58  THE  INTEEPEETEES  OF  GENESIS 

Hundreds  of  thousands  of  animal  species,  as  distinct 
as  tliose  whicli  now  compose  our  water,  land,  and 
air  populations,  have  come  into  existence  and  died  out 
again,  throughout  the  eons  of  geological  time  which 
separate  us  from  the  lower  Paleozoic  epoch,  when,  as 
I  have  pointed  out,  oiu*  present  evidence  of  the  exist- 
ence of  such  distinct  populations  connnences.  If  the 
species  of  animals  have  all  been  separately  created, 
then  it  follows  that  hundreds  of  thousands  of  acts  of 
creative  energy  have  occui'red  at  intervals  thi'oughout 
the  whole  time  recorded  by  the  fossiliferous  rocks ; 
and,  during  the  greater  part  of  that  time,  the  "  crea- 
tion" of  the  members  of  the  water,  land,  and  aii'  pop- 
ulations must  have  gone  on  contem2)oraneously. 
.  If  we  represent  the  water,  land,  and  air  populations 
by  a,  h,  and  c  respectively,  and  take  vertical  succession 
on  the  page  to  indicate  order  in  time,  then  the  fol- 
lowing schemes  will  roughly  shadow  forth  the  con- 
trast I  have  been  endeavoring  to  explain : 

Genesis  (as  interpreted  Nature  (as  interpi'eted 

by  Mr.  Gladstone).  by  natural  science). 

b  b  b  c'-a^b^ 

c  c  c  c   a^  b^ 

a  a  a  b    a^  b 

a  a  a 
So  far  as  I  can  see,  there  is  only  one  resoiu'ce  left 
for  those  modern  representatives  of  Sisyphus,  the  rec- 
oncilers of  Genesis  with  science;  and  it  has  the  ad- 
vantage of  being  founded  on  a  jDerfectly  legitimate 
appeal  to  our  ignorance.  It  has  been  seen  that,  on 
any  interpretation  of  the  terms  "  water- j)oj)ulation  " 
and  "land-population,"  it  must  be  admitted  that 
invertebrate  representatives  of  these  populations  ex- 
isted during  the  lower  Paleozoic  epoch.  No  evolu- 
tionist can  hesitate  to  admit  that  other  land  animals 


AND  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  NATURE.         59 

(and  possibly  vertebrates  among  them)  may  have  ex- 
isted dui'ing  that  time,  of  the  history  of  which  we 
know  so  httle ;  and,  fui'ther,  that  scorpions  are  ani- 
mals of  such  high  organization  that  it  is  highly  prob- 
able theii"  existence  indicates  that  of  a  long  antece- 
dent land-po]Dulation  of  a  similar  character. 

Then,  since  the  land-population  is  said  not  to  have 
been  created  until  the  sixth  day,  it  necessarily  fol- 
lows that  the  evidence  of  the  order  in  which  animals 
appeared  must  be  sought  in  the  record  of  those  older 
Paleozoic  times  in  which  only  traces  of  the  water- 
population  have  as  yet  been  discovered. 

Therefore,  if  anyone  chooses  to  say  that  the 
creative  work  took  place  in  the  Cambrian  or  Lauren- 
tian  epoch  in  exactly  that  manner  which  Mr.  Glad- 
stone does,  and  natui'al  science  does  not,  affirm,  nat- 
ural science  is  not  in  a  position  to  disprove  the 
accm'acy  of  the  statement.  Only  one  cannot  have 
one's  cake  and  eat  it  too,  and  such  safety  from  the 
contradiction  of  science  means  the  forfeitui-e  of  her 
support. 

Whether  the  account  of  the  work  of  the  first,  sec- 
ond, and  third  days  in  Genesis  would  be  confirmed 
by  the  demonstration  of  the  truth  of  the  nebulai*  hy- 
pothesis ;  whether  it  is  corroborated  by  what  is 
known  of  the  natui-e  and  probable  relative  antiquity  of 
the  heavenly  bodies ;  whether,  if  the  Hebrew  word 
translated  "  firmament "  in  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion really  means  "  expanse,"  the  assertion  that  the 
waters  are  partly  under  this  "  expanse  "  and  jDartly 
above  it  would  be  any  more  confirmed  by  the  ascer- 
tained facts  of  physical  geography  and  meteorology 
than  it  was  before ;  whether  the  creation  of  the 
whole  vegetable  world,  and  especially  of  "grass,  herb 


60  THE  INTEEPEETERS  OF  GENESIS 

yielding  seed  after  its  kind,  and  tree  bearing  fruit," 
before  any  kind  of  animal  is  "  affirmed  "  by  the  appar- 
ently plain  teaching  of  botanical  paleontology,  that 
grasses  and  fruit-trees  originated  long  subsequently 
to  animals — all  these  are  questions  which,  if  I  mis- 
take not,  would  be  answered  decisively  in  the  negative 
by  those  who  are  specially  conversant  with  the  sci- 
ences involved.  And  it  must  be  recollected  that  the 
issue  raised  by  Mr.  Gladstone  is  not  whether,  by 
some  effort  of  ingenuity,  the  pentateuchal  story  can 
be  shown  to  be  not  disprovable  by  scientific  knowl- 
edge, but  whether  it  is  supported  thereby. 

There  is  nothing,  then,  in  the  criticisms  of  Dr.  R^ville, 
but  wliat  rather  tends  to  confirm  than  to  impair  the  old-fash- 
ioned belief  that  there  is  a  revelation  in  the  book  of  Genesis. 

The  form  into  which  Mr.  Gladstone  has  thought 
fit  to  throw  this  opinion  leaves  me  in  doubt  as  to  its 
substance.  I  do  not  understand  how  a  hostile  criti- 
cism can,  under  any  circumstances,  tend  to  confirm 
that  which  it  attacks.  If,  however,  Mr.  Gladstone 
merely  means  to  exj)ress  his  personal  impression,  "  as 
one  wholly  destitute  of  that  kind  of  knowledge  which 
carries  authority,"  that  he  has  destroyed  the  value  of 
these  criticisms,  I  have  neither  the  wish  nor  the  right 
to  disturb  his  faith.  On  the  other  hand,  I  may  be 
permitted  to  state  my  own  conviction  that,  so  far  as 
natural  science  is  involved,  M.  Eeville's  observations 
retain  the  exact  value  they  possessed  before  ]\Ir. 
Gladstone  attacked  them. 

Trusting  that  I  have  now  said  enough  to  secure  the 
author  of  a  wise  and  moderate  disquisition  upon  a 
topic  which  seems  fated  to  stir  unwisdom  and  fanat- 
icism to  then  depths,  a  fuller  measure  of  justice  than 


AND  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  NATURE.        61 

has  hitherto  been  accorded  to  him,  I  retire  from  my 
self-appointed  championship,  with  the  hope  that  I 
shall  not  hereafter  be  called  upon  by  M.  Eeville  to 
apologize  for  damage  done  to  his  strong  case  by  im- 
perfect or  impulsive  advocacy.  But  perhaps  I  may  be 
permitted  to  add  a  word  or  two,  on  my  own  account, 
in  reference  to  the  great  question  of  the  relations 
between  science  and  religion,  since  it  is  one  about 
which  I  have  thought  a  good  deal  ever  since  I  have 
been  able  to  think  at  all,  and  about  which  I  have  ven- 
tured to  express  my  views  publicly  more  than  once 
in  the  course  of  the  last  thirty  years. 

The  antagonism  between  science  and  religion, 
about  which  we  hear  so  much,  appears  to  me  to  be 
jDurely  factitious,  fabricated  on  the  one  hand  by 
short-sighted  religious  people,  who  confound  a  cer- 
tain branch  of  science,  theology,  with  religion ;  and 
on  the  other  by  equally  short-sighted  scientific  people 
who  forget  that  science  takes  for  its  prcsdnce  only 
that  which  is  susceptible  of  clear  intellectual  compre- 
hension, and  that  outside  the  boundaries  of  that  prov- 
ince they  must  be  content  with  imagination,  with 
hope,  and  with  ignorance. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  moral  and  intellectual  life 
of  the  civilized  nations  of  Eui'ope  is  the  product  of 
that  interaction,  sometimes  in  the  way  of  antago- 
nism, sometimes  in  that  of  profitable  interchange  of 
the  Semitic  and  Aiyan  races,  which  commenced  with 
the  dawn  of  history,  when  Greek  and  Phoenician 
came  in  contact,  and  has  been  continued  by  Cai'tha- 
ginian  and  Roman,  by  Jew  and  gentile,  down  to  the 
present  day.  Our  art  (except,  perhaps,  music)  and 
our  science  are  the  contributions  of  the  Ai'yan ;  but 
the    essence   of   our   religion   is    derived   from    the 


62  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  GENESIS 

Semite.  In  the  eighth  century  e.g.,  in  the  heart  of 
a  world  of  idolatrous  polytheists,  the  Hebrew  proph- 
ets put  forth  a  conception  of  rehgion  which  appeal's 
to  me  to  be  as  wonderful  an  inspu-ation  of  genius  as 
the  art  of  Pheidias  or  the  science  of  Aristotle. 

"  And  what  doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee,  but  to 
do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly 
with  thy  God  r 

If  any  so-called  religion  takes  away  from  this  great 
saying  of  IVIicah,  I  think  it  wantonly  mutilates,  while 
if  it  adds  thereto,  I  think  it  obscures,  the  perfect 
ideal  of  religion. 

But  what  extent  of  knowledge,  what  acuteness  of 
scientific  criticism,  can  touch  this,  if  anyone  possessed 
of  knowledge  or  acuteness  could  be  absurd  enough 
to  make  the  attempt  1  Will  the  progress  of  research 
prove  that  justice  is  worthless  and  mercy  hateful  1 
Will  it  ever  soften  the  bitter  contrast  between  our 
actions  and  our  aspii'ations,  or  show  us  the  bounds  of 
the  universe,  and  bid  us  say,  "  Go  to,  now  we  com- 
prehend the  infinite  T' 

A  faculty  of  wrath  lay  in  those  ancient  Israehtes, 
and  sui'ely  the  prophet's  staff  would  have  made  swift 
acquaintance  with  the  head  of  the  scholar  who  had 
asked  Micah  whether,  peradventure,  the  Lord  further 
required  of  him  an  imphcit  behef  in  the  acciu-acy  of 
the  cosmogony  of  Genesis ! 

What  we  are  usually  pleased  to  call  religion  now- 
adays is,  for  the  most  part,  Hellenized  Judaism;  and 
not  unfrequently  the  Hellenic  element  carries  with  it 
a  mighty  remnant  of  old-world  paganism  and  a  great 
infusion  of  the  worst  and  weakest  products  of  Greek 
scientific  speculation ;  while  fi'agments  of  Persian  and 


AND  THE  INTEEPRETEKS  OF  NATURE.        63 

Babylonian,  or  rather  Accadian,  mythology  burden 
the  Judaic  contribution  to  the  common  stock. 

The  antagonism  of  science  is  not  to  religion,  but 
to  the  heathen  sui'vivals  and  the  bad  philosophy  un- 
der which  religion  herself  is  often  well-nigh  crushed. 
And,  for  my  part,  I  trust  that  this  antagonism  will 
never  cease,  but  that  to  the  end  of  time  time  science 
will  continue  to  fulfil  one  of  her  most  beneficent 
functions,  that  of  relieving  men  from  the  burden  of 
false  science  which  is  imposed  upon  them  in  the  name 
of  rehgion. 

This  is  the  work  that  M.  Reville  and  men  such  as 
he  are  doing  for  us;  this  is  the  work  which  his  op- 
ponents are  endeavoring,  consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously, to  hinder.  T.  H.  Huxley. 


P0ST8CBIPT    TO    SOLAB    MYTHS. 

A   KEPLT    TO    W.    E.    GLADSTONE. 
BY    F.  _  MAX    MtJLLEK. 

I  find  it  difficult,  and  should  consider  it  almost  dis- 
courteous, to  order  the  last  revise  of  my  article  on 
"  Solar  Myths  "  for  press  without  saying  a  few  words 
in  rei^ly  to  Mr.  Gladstone's  essay  on  the  "  Dawn  of 
Creation  and  of  Worship,"  published  in  the  November 
number  of  this  Hevieic.  Mr.  Gladstone's  arguments, 
it  is  true,  are  chiefly  dii'ected  against  M.  Reville's 
"  Prolegomenes  de  I'Histoire  des  Rehgions,"  a  work 
which  I  felt  it  an  honor  to  introduce  to  the  favorable 
notice  of  the  English  pubhc  by  adding  -a  small  preface 
to  the  English  translation.  Nor  should  I  have 
thought  it  incumbent  upon  myself,  or  respectful  to 
so  eminent  a  theologian  as  M.  Reville  has  long  proved 
himself  to  be  both  as  an  active  clergyman  and  as  the 
first  professor  of  the  science  of  religion  at  the  College 
de  France,  to  step  in  between  him  and  Mr.  Glad- 
stone, while  these  two  eloquent  pleaders  are  discuss- 
ing theii"  own  pecuhar  views  on  the  origin  of  the 
Pentateuch  or  on  the  exact  meaning  of  certain  con- 
tested passages  in  the  book  of  Genesis. 

But  when  Mr.  Gladstone  proceeds  to  attack,  with 
what  seems  to  me  in  some  passages  parliamentary 
rather  than  academic  eloquence,  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  comparative  mythology,  and  more  particu- 
larly that  theory  which  he  calls  Solarism,  it  might 
show  discretion  indeed,  but  hai'dly  valor,  were  I  to 


POSTSCEIPT    TO    SOLAR    MYTHS.  65 

hide  myself  behind  M.  Beville,  who  has  so  boldly 
come  f  orwaxd  as  the  champion  of  a  theory  the  jjater- 
nity  of  which  I  could  not,  and,  if  I  could,  I  would 
not  deny. 

Solarisin,  however,  is  used  by  Mr.  Gladstone  in  a 
sense  very  different  from  that  in  which  I  should  use 
it.  He  apphes  it  to  a  theory  according  to  which  ctU 
mythology  has  a  solar  origin,  ali  gods  are  solar  gods, 
all  heroes  solar  heroes,  all  myths  and  legends  but 
half-forgotten  stories  about  the  sun  as  the  giver  of 
light  and  life,  or  as  the  lord  of  days  and  months  and 
seasons  and  years.  Mine  has  been  a  much  humbler 
task,  and  I  have  never  attempted  more  than  to  prove 
that  certain  portions  of  ancient  mythology  have  a 
dh-ectly  solar  origin.  Nor  have  I  ever  done  so  except 
in  cases  where,  either  by  etymological  analysis  or  by 
a  comparison  of  Greek  and  Roman  with  Vedic  myths, 
I  imagined  I  could  make  it  clear  that  certain  stories 
which  seemed  ii'rational  or  UTeverent,  when  told  of 
gods  such  as  Jupiter  or  Apollo  or  Athene,  became 
perfectly  intelligible  if  accej)ted  as  they  were  told 
originally  of  the  sky  or  the  sun  or  the  dawn.  I  have 
protested  again  and  again  against  the  theory  that 
there  is  but  one  key  to  unlock  all  the  secret  drawers 
of  ancient  mythology.  As  little  as  the  sun  is  the 
whole  of  natui-e  is  ancient  mythology  wholly  solar. 
But  as  certainly  as  the  sun,  with  all  that  is  dependent 
on  it,  forms  the  most  prominent,  half  natui'al,  and 
half  supernatiu'al  object  in  the  thoughts  of  the  ancient 
and  even  of  the  modern  world,  are  solar  myths  a  most- 
important  ingredient  in  the  language,  the  traditions, 
and  the  rehgion  of  the  whole  human  race.  If  in 
working  out  this  theory  my  interpretation  of  passages 
in  Homer  or  in  the  Veda  has  been  vsrong,  if  my  ap- 


66  POSTSCEIPT    TO    SOLAR    MYTHS. 

plication  of  phonetic  rules  has  ever  been  inaccurate, 
let  it  be  proved.  Nothing  delights  me  more  than 
when  I  am  proved  to  have  been  wi'ong,  for  in  that 
case  I  always  carry  away  something  that  is  worth 
having.  If,  for  instance,  Mr.  Gladstone  or  any  other 
Greek  scholar  could  prove  that  in  Greek  short  £ 
without  the  spiritus  asjjer  can  ever  become  the  long 
?/  with  the  spiritus  asper,  then  I  should  confess  that 
my  protest  against  deriving  the  name  of  Hera  from 
era.,  the  earth,  was  futile,  and  I  should  as  readily  ac- 
cept the  original  chthonic  character  of  the  wife  of 
Zeus  as  I  should  accept  Mr.  Gladstone's  identification 
of  breakfast  and  dinner,  provided  always  that  he  can 
produce  one  single  case  from  the  whole  of  the  French 
language  in  which  dt  or  dis  (in  diner  or  disner)  rep- 
resents an  original  dejeu  (in  dejeuner.  That  there 
ai'e  chthonic  elements  in  the  chai'acter  of  Hera  I 
readily  allow ;  but  that  does  not  prove  that  one  of  her 
names  might  not  have  been  the  heavenly  or  the  brill- 
iant goddess,  just  as  in  Latin  she  is  called  Juno,  the 
female  counterpart  of  Ju-piter,  her  heavenly  consort. 
Earth  as  well  as  heaven,  nay,  every  part  of  nature,  is 
hable  to  mythological  metamorphosis ;  and  I  have 
tried  to  show  how  many  old  sayings  concerning 
heaven,  earth,  the  sun,  the  moon,  the  stars,  day  and 
night,  months,  seasons  and  years,  rivers  and  mountains, 
men  and  animals,  the  spiiits  of  the  departed,  or  even 
mere  abstractions,  such  as  honor  or  vii'tue,  have  been 
rolled  up  in  time  into  that  curious  conglomerate  of 
ancient  thought  which,  for  want  of  a  better  name,  we 
call  mythology. 

This  view  I  am  prepared  to  defend  with  the  same 
firm  conviction  with  which  I  started  it  nearly  forty 
years  ago.     Nor  do  I  see  that  Mr.  Gladstone's  argu- 


POSTSCRIPT    TO    SOLAE    MYTHS.  67 

ments  have  shattered  or  even  touched  my  old  position. 
He  maintains  that  in  the  Olympian  mythology,  such 
as  we  find  it  in  the  Homeric  poems,  the  Greek  gods 
ai'e  no  longer  mere  representatives  of  physical 
phenomena,  but  genuine  "  theanthromorphic "  con- 
cejDtions.  This  is  the  very  view  which  I  have 
defended,  though  I  confess  I  have  sometimes  won- 
dered whether  the  ancient  popular  poets  had  really 
no  suspicion  whatever  of  the  original  character  of 
their  gods,  while  some  of  the  earliest  Greek  phi- 
losophers were  so  fully  conscious  of  it.  But  however 
that  may  be,  the  Homeric  mythology,  as  well  as  the 
Homeric  language,  has  surely  its  antecedents.  Many 
of  its  anomalous  legends  and  its  irregular  verbs  did 
not  even  spring  into  existence  on  Greek  soil,  for  they 
can  be  traced  in  India  and  even  in  Iceland,  though 
certainly  not,  as  Mi'.  Gladstone  implies  (page  11), 
in  Egypt,  still  less  in  Palestine.  It  is  with  these 
antecedents,  with  the  prehistoric  of  Ai'yan  mythology, 
that  comparative  mythologists  are  chiefly  concerned, 
and  siu'ely  Mr.  Gladstone  would  be  the  last  scholar 
to  be  satisfied  with  merely  superficial  comparisons. 
There  is  a  true  radicalism  in  scholarship,  too,  which 
despises  all  measures  which  do  not  go  to  the  roots  of 
things.  Mr.  Gladstone  warns  us  not  to  trust  too 
much  to  etymology ;  he  might  as  well  warn  the  ex- 
plorer of  Oxford  clay  not  to  believe  too  much  in  that 
sohd  granite  which  each  honest  digger  will  find,  if 
only  he  digs  deep  enough.  Etymology  represents 
the  prehistoric  period  in  human  language  and  human 
thought,  and  the  light  which  it  has  shed  on  later 
periods  is  certainly  not  less  important  than  the 
lessons  which  geology  and  paleontology  have  added 
to  the  study  of  mankind.    As  in  the  beautiful  Campo 


68  POSTSCRIPT    TO    SOLAR   MYTHS. 

Santo  of  Bologna  we  find,  beneath  the  monuments 
erected  by  the  loving  care  of  living  mourners,  tomb- 
stones— discovered,  one  might  faMy  say,  by  the 
divining  rod  and  disinterred  by  the  indefatigable 
spade  of  Zannoni — which  reveal  to  us  the  daily  life 
and  the  daily  struggles,  the  hopes  and  fears,  of  races, 
whom  we  call  prehistoric,  but  who  were  once  as  truly 
historic  as  their  conquerors  and  successors,  whether 
Umbrian,  Etruscan,  or  Roman — the  vast  Ai'yan  cem- 
etery of  language  and  myth,  too,  as  explored  by  many 
patient  diggers,  has  sxuTendered  tombstones  which 
tell  us  of  the  thoughts,  of  the  faith  and  hope,  of  those 
whose  descendants  we  are,  however  difificult  we  find 
it  to  understand  their  language  and  to  think  their 
thoughts.  Does  Mr.  Gladstone  believe  that  words 
are  ever  without  an  etymology,  or  that  ■  myths  are 
ever  without  reason  ?  And,  if  not,  does  he  think  it  is 
of  no  importance  to  know  why  Zeus  was  first,  called 
Zeus,  or  why  Achilleus,  like  other  Ai'yan  heroes,  was 
believed  to  be  vulnerable  in  one  point  only?  Mr. 
Gladstone  seems  afraid  that  prehistoric  ideas  might 
be  transferred  to  historic  times,  and,  speaking  of  the 
future,  he  writes :  "  Strange,  indeed,  will  be  the 
effect  of  such  a  system,  if  applied  to  our  own  case  at 
some  date  in  the  far-off  future ;  for  it  will  be  shown 
hiter  alia,  that  there  were  no  priests,  but  only  pres- 
byters, in  any  portion  of  Western  Chi'istendom  ;  that 
our  dukes  were  simply  generals  leading  us  in  war ; 
that  we  broke  our  fast  at  eight  in  the  evening  (for 
diner  is  but  a  compression  of  dejeuner) ;  and  even, 
possibly,  that  one  of  the  noblest  and  most  famous 
English  houses  pursued  habitually  the  humble  occu- 
pation of  a  pig-driver." 

I  do  not  anticipate  any  such  anachronisms ;  as  Kttle 


POSTSCRIPT    TO    SOLAR    MYTHS.  69 

do  I  expect  that  futui-e  histoiians  Avill  mistake  oiu* 
lords  for  bread-givers  {hldf-ord)  or  otu:  paiiiamentary 
whips  for  pig-di'ivers.  And  yet  every  one  of  the 
words  which  Mr.  Gladstone  quotes,  if  but  rightly  in- 
terpreted, has  some  important  lessons  to  teach  those 
who  will  come  after  us. 

It  is  well  that  they  should  know  that  originally 
priests  were  not  diiferent  from  laymen,  and  that  they 
were  well  satisfied  with  the  simple  title  of  presbyters 
or  elders,  being  elders  not  only  in  age,  but  in  wis- 
dom, self-denial,  and  in  tolerance. 

It  is  well  that  they  should  know,  if  it  is  so,  that  the 
ancestor  of  one  of  the  noblest  and  most  famous 
EngHsh  houses  was  a  pig-diiver,  if  thus  they  may 
learn  that  there  was  a  time  when  a  noble  career  was 
oj)en  in  England  even  to  the  humblest  ranks. 

It  is  well  that  they  should  know  that  dukes  were 
not  always  mere  possessors  of  large  wealth  which 
they  had  not  earned  themselves,  but  that  originally 
they  were  in  very  deed  leaders  in  battle,  leaders  in 
thought,  and  ready  to  coiu't  the  place  of  danger, 
whether  against  battahons  or  against  the  tumult  of 
vulgar  error  and  prejudice.  ]VIi\  Gladstone  need  not 
be  afraid  that  future  historians  will  ever  mistake  him 
for  a  merely  titular  duke,  though  they  will  speak  of 
him,  as  we  do,  as  oiu*  leader,  as  a  true  Duca  e  Maes- 
tro, if  not  always  against  the  tiunult  of  vulgar  error 
and  prejudice,  yet,  without  fail,  whenever  any  vsrongs 
had  to  be  righted,  effete  privileges  to  be  abolished, 
and  lessons  of  wisdom  and  moderation,  however  dis- 
tasteful, to  be  taught  to  the  strong  and  the  weak,  to 
the  rich  and  the  poor.  F.  Max  Muller. 

Florence,  November  7,  1885. 


PROEM  TO    GENESIS:    A    PLEA    FOR    A   FAIR 
TRIAL. 

A    EEPLY    TO    PROFESSORS    HTTXLEY    AND    MULLER. 
BY    W.    E.    GLADSTONE. 

Vous  avez  une  inanihre  si  amiable  cVannoncer  les 
plus  mauvaises  nouvelles,  qic'elles  perdent par  Id  de 
leurs  des  agrenient*  So  wrote,  de  haut  en  has,^  the 
Ducliess  of  York  to  Beau  Brummell,  sixty  or  sev- 
enty yeai's  back  (Life,  by  Jesse,  i,  260) ;  and  so  write 
I,  de  has  en  haut,X  to  the  two  very  eminent  champions 
who  have  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  of  December 
entered  appearances  on  behalf  of  Dr.  Eeville's  Prol'e- 
gonihnes,  with  a  decisiveness  of  tone,  at  all  events, 
which  admits  of  no  mistake — Professor  Huxley  and 
Professor  Max  Mtiller.  My  first  duty  is  to  acknowl- 
edge in  both  cases  the  abundant  courtesy  and 
indulgence  with  which  I  am  j^ersonally  treated.  And 
my  first  thought  is  that,  where  even  disagreement  is 
made  in  a  manner  pleasant,  it  will  be  a  duty  to  search 
and  see  if  there  be  any  points  of  agreement  or  ap- 
proximation, which  will  be  more  pleasant  still.  This 
indulgence  and  coui'tesy  deserves  in  the  case  of  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  a  special  warmth  of  acknowledgment, 
because,  while  thus  more  than  liberal  to  the  individ- 
ual, he  has  for  the  class  of  Reconcilers,  in  which  he 
places  me,  an  unconcealed  and  unmeasured  scorn. 
These  are  they  who  impose  upon  man  a  burden  of 


*  You  have  so  charming  a  manner  of  telling  the  worst  news 
that  it  loses  its  disagreeableness. 
t  The  high  to  the  low.  J  The  low  to  the  high. 


PEOEM    TO    GENESIS.  71 

false  science  in  the  name  of  religion,  who  dictate  as 
a  divine  command  "an  implicit  belief  in  the  cos- 
mogony of  Genesis ;  "  and  who  "  stir  unwisdom  and 
fanaticism  to  their  depths."  Judgments  so  severe 
should  surely  be  supported  by  citation  or  other  evi- 
dence, for  which  I  look  in  vain.  To  some  they  might 
suggest  the  idea  that  passion  may  sometimes  un- 
awares intrude  even  within  the  precincts  of  the 
temple  of  science.  But  I  admit  that  a  greater  master 
of  his  art  may  well  be  provoked,  when  he  finds  his 
materials  tumbled  about  by  incapable  hands,  and  may 
mistake  for  u-reverence  what  is  only  want  of  skill. 

While  acknowledging  the  great  courtesy  with 
which  Professor  Huxley  treats  his  antagonists  indi- 
vidually, and  while  simply  listening  to  his  denuncia- 
tions of  the  Reconcilers  as  one  listens  to  distant 
thunders,  with  a  sort  of  sense  that  after  all  they  will 
do  no  great  harm,  I  must  presume  to  animadvert 
with  considerable  freedom  upon  his  method ;  upon 
the  sweeping  character  of  his  advocacy ;  upon  his 
perceptible  exaggeration  of  jDoints  in  controversy ; 
upon  his  mode  of  dealing  with  authorities  ;  and  upon 
the  curious  fallacy  of  substitution  by  which  he  enables 
himself  to  found  the  widest  proscriptions  of  the 
claim  of  the  book  of  Genesis  to  contain  a  divine  rec- 
ord upon  a  reasoned  impeachment  of  its  scientific 
accui'acy  in,  as  I  shall  show,  a  single  particular. 

As  to  the  first  of  these  topics,  nothing  can  be  more 
equitable  than  Professor  Huxley's  intention  to  inter- 
vene as  a  "  science  proctor  "  in  that  part  of  the  debate 
raised  by  M.  Reville,  "  to  which  he  proposes  to 
restrict  his  observations."  This  is  the  part  on 
which  he  proposes  in  his  first  page  to  report  as  a 
student — and  every  reader  will  inwardly  add,  as  one 


72  PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 

of  the  most  eminent  among  all  students — of  natural 
science.  Now  this  is  not  the  cosmogonical  part  of 
the  account  in  Genesis.  On  Genesis  i,  1-19,  contain- 
ing the  cosmogony,  he  does  not  report  as  an  expert, 
but  refers  us  to  "  those  who  are  specially  conversant 
with  the  sciences  involved  ; "  adding  his  opinion  about 
then-  ojDinions.  Yet  in  his  second  page,  without 
making  any  reference  to  thi^  broad  distinction,  he  at 
once  forgets  the  just  limitation  of  his  first,  and  oui" 
"proctor  for  science "  pronounces  on  M.  Reville's 
estimate,  not  of  the  fourfold  succession  in  the  strati- 
fication of  the  earth,  but  of  "the  account  of  the 
creation  given  in  the  book  of  Genesis,"  that  its  terms 
are  as  "respectful  as  in  his  judgment  they  are  just." 
Thus  the  proctorship  for  science,  justly  assumed 
for  matters  within  his  jorovince  as  a  student,  is 
rather  hastily  extended  to  matters  which  he  himself 
declares  to  be  beyond  it.  In  truth  it  will  appear 
that  as  there  are  many  roads  to  heaven  with  one  end- 
ing, so,  provided  only  a  man  arrives  at  the  conclusion 
that  the  great  Proem  of  Genesis  lends  no  support  to 
the  argument  for  revelation,  it  does  not  much  matter 
how  he  gets  there.  For  in  this  "just"  account  of  the 
creation  I  have  shown  that  M.  Reville  supports  his 
accusation  of  scientific  error  by  three  particulars: 
that  in  the  first  he  contradicts  the  judgment  of  schol- 
ars on  the  sense  of  the  original ;  in  the  second  he 
both  misquotes  (by  inadvertence)  the  terms  of  the 
text,  and  overlooks  the  distinction  made  so  jDalpable 
(if  not  earlier)  half  a  centui'y  ago,  by  the  work  of  Dr. 
Buckland  (Bridgewater  Treatise,  vol.  i,  pp.  19-28),  be- 
tween hara  and  asa;  while  the  third  proceeds  on  the 
assumption  that  there  could  be  no  light  to  produce  veg- 
etation, except  light  derived  from  a  visible  sun.  These 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS.  73 

three  charges  constitute  the  head  and  front  of  M. 
Keville's  indictment  against  the  cosmogony ;  and  the 
fatal  flaws  in  them,  without  any  notice  or  defense, 
are  now  all  taken  under  the  mantle  of  our  science 
proctor,  who  returns  to  the  charge  at  the  close  of  his 
article,  and  again  dismisses  with  comprehensive  honor 
as  "  wise  and  moderate  "  what  he  had  ushered  in  as 
reverent  and  just.  So  much  for  the  sweepingj  un dis- 
criminating chai'acter  of  an  advocacy  which,  in  a 
scientific  writex',  we  might  perhaps  have  expected  to 
be  carefully  limited  and  defined. 

I  take  next  the  exaggeration  which  appears  to  me 
to  mark  unhappily  Professor  Huxley's  method.  Un- 
der this  head  I  include  all  needless  multiplication  of 
points  of  controversy,  whether  in  the  form  of  over- 
stating differences,  or  rmderstating  agreements,  with 
an  adversary. 

As  I  have  lived  for  more  than  half  a  century  in  an 
atmosphere  of  contention,  my  stock  of  controversial 
fire  has  perhaps  become  abnormally  low ;  while  Pro- 
fessor Huxley,  who  has  been  inhabiting  the  Elysian 
regions  of  science,  the  edita  docirind  sapientum 
templa  serena  (Lucr.  ii,  8),  may  be  enjoying  all  the 
freshness  of  an  tmjaded  appetite.  Certainly  one  of 
the  lessons  life  has  taught  me  is  that  where  there  is 
known  to  be  a  common  object,  the  pursuit  of  truth, 
there  should  also  be  a  studious  desu-e  to  interpret  the 
adversary  in  the  best  sense  his  words  will  fauiy  bear ; 
to  avoid  whatever  widens  the  breach  ;  and  to  make 
the  most  of  whatever  tends  to  narrow  it.  These  I 
hold  to  be  part  of  the  laws  of  knightly  tournament. 

I  do  not,  therefore,  fully  understand  why  Professor 
Huxley  makes  it  a  matter  of  objection  to  me  that,  in 
rebuking  a  writer  who  had  treated  evolution  whole- 


74  PEOEM    TO    GENESIS. 

sale  as  a  novelty  in  the  world,  I  cited  a  few  old 
instances  of  moral  and  historical  evolution  only,  and 
did  not  extend  my  front  by  examining  English  sages 
and  the  founders  of  Greek  philosophy.  Nor  why, 
when  I  have  spoken  of  physical  evolution  as  of  a  thing 
to  me  most  acceptable,  but  not  yet  in  its  rigor  (to  my 
knowledge)  proved,  we  have  only  the  rather  niggardly 
acknowledgment  that  I  have  made  "  the  most  oblique 
admissions  of  a  possible  value."  Thus  it  is  when 
agreement  is  threatened,  but  far  otherwise  when 
differences  are  to  be  blazoned.  "When  I  have  spoken 
of  the  succession  of  orders  in  the  most  general  terms 
only,  this  is  declared  a  sharply  divided  succession  in 
which  the  last  species  of  one  cannot  overlaj)  the  fii'st 
species  of  another.  When  I  have  pleaded  on  simple 
grounds  of  reasoning  for  the  supposition  of  a  sub- 
stantial correspondence  between  Genesis  i  and  science, 
have  waived  all  questions  of  a  verbal  inspiration,  all 
question  whether  the  whole  of  the  statements  can 
now  be  made  good,  I  am  treated  as  one  of  those  who 
impose  "  in  the  name  of  religion  "  as  a  divine  requisi- 
tion "  an  implicit  belief  in  the  accui-acy  of  the  cos- 
mogony of  Genesis,"  and  who  deserve  to  have  their 
heads  broken  in  consequence. 

I  have  vu-ged  notliing  "  in  the  name  of  rehgion." 
I  have  sought  to  adduce  probable  evidence  that  a 
guidance  more  than  human  lies  within  the  great 
Proem  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  just  as  I  might  adduce 
probable  evidence  to  show  that  Francis  did  or  did  not 
write  Junius,  that  William  the  Third  was  or  was  not 
responsible  for  the  massacre  of  Glencoe ;  I  have  ex- 
pressly excepted  detail,  and  have  stated  that  in  my 
inquiry  "  the  authority  of  scripture  cannot  be  alleged 
in  proof  of  a  primitive  revelation."     I  object  to  all 


PEOEM    TO    GENESIS.  75 

these  exaggerations  of  charge,  as  savoring  of  the 
spirit  of  the  Inquisition,  and  as  restraints  on  Hterary 
freedom. 

My  next  observation  as  to  the  professor's  method 
refers  to  his  treatment  of  authorities. 

In  one  passage  (p.  46)  Mi\  Huxley  expresses  his  re- 
gret that  I  have  not  named  my  authority  for  the  state- 
ment made  concerning  the  fourfold  succession,  in  order 
that  he  might  have  transferred  his  attentions  from 
myself  to  a  new  delinquent.  Now,  published  works 
ai'e  (as  I  may  show)  a  fau'  subject  for  reference.  But 
as  to  pointing  out  any  person  who  might  have  favored 
me  with  his  views  in  private  coiTespondence,  I  own 
that  I  should  have  some  scruple  in  handing  him  over 
to  be  pilloried  as  a  Reconciler,  and  to  be  pelted  with 
charges  of  unwisdom  and  fanaticism,  which  I  myself, 
from  long  use,  am  perfectly  content  to  beai\ 

I  did  refer  to  three  great  and  famous  names: 
those  of  Cuvier,  Sir  John  Herschel,  and  Whewell. 
Mr.  Huxley  speaks  of  me  as  having  qiioted  them  in 
support  of  my  case  on  the  fourfold  succession ;  and 
at  the  same  time  notices  that  I  admitted  Cuvier  not 
to  be  a  recent  authority,  which  in  geology  proper  is, 
I  believe,  nearly  equivalent  to  saying  he  is,  for  par- 
ticulars, no  authority  at  all.  This  recital  is  siugu- 
larly  inaccurate.  I  cited  them,  not  with  reference  to 
the  fourfold  succession,  but  generally  for  "  the  gen- 
eral accordance  of  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  with  the 
results  of  modern  inquiry,"  and  pai'ticularly  in  con- 
nection with  the  nebular  hypothesis.  It  is  the  cos- 
mogony (Gen.  i,  1-19),  not  the  fourfold  succession, 
which  was  the  sole  object  of  Reville's  attack,  and  the 
main  object  of  my  defense,  and  which  is  the  largest 
portion  of  the  whole  subject.     Will  Mr.  Huxley  vent- 


76  PKOEM    TO    GENESIS. 

ure  to  say  that  Cuvier  is  an  unavailable  authority,  or 
that  Herscliel  and  Whewell  are  other  than  great  and 
venerable  names,  with  reference  to  the  cosmogony  f 
Yet  he  has  quietly  set  them  aside  without  notice ; 
and  they  with  many  more  are  inclusively  bespattered 
with  the  charges  which  he  has  launched  against  the 
pestilent  tribe  of  Reconcilers. 

My  fourth  and  last  observation  on  the  "  method" 
of  Professor  Huxley  is  that,  after  discussing  a  part, 
and  that  not  the  most  considerable  part,  of  the  Proem 
of  Genesis,  he  has  broadly  pronounced  upon  the 
whole.  This  is  a  mode  of  reasoning  which  logic  re- 
jects, and  which  I  presume  to  savor  more  of  license 
than  of  science.  The  fourfold  succession  is  con- 
demned with  ai'gument;  the  cosmogony  is  thi'own 
into  the  baigain.  True,  IVIi-.  Huxley  refers  in  a  single 
sentence  to  thi'ee  detached  points  of  it  partially 
touched  in  my  observations  (p.  50).  But  all  my  ai*- 
gument,  the  chief  argument  of  my  paper,  leads  up  to 
the  nebulai"  or  rotary  hypothesis.  This  hypothesis, 
with  the  authorities  cited — of  whom  one  is  the  author 
of  "Vestiges  of  Creation  " — is  inclusively  condemned, 
and  without  a  word  vouchsafed  to  it. 

I  shall  jDresently  express  my  gratitude  for  the  scien- 
tific part  of  Mr.  Huxley's  paper.  But  there  are  two 
sides  to  the  question.  The  whole  matter  at  issue  is  : 
1.  A  comparison  between  the  probable  meaning  of 
the  Proem  to  Genesis  and  the  results  of  cosmological 
and  geological  science ;  2.  The  question  whether  this 
comparison  favors  or  does  not  favor  the  belief  that 
an  element  of  divine  knowledge — knowledge  which 
was  not  accessible  to  the  simple  action  of  the  human 
faculties — is  conveyed  to  us  in  this  Proem.  It  is  not 
enough  to  be  accurate  in  one  term  of  a  comparison, 


PEOEM    TO    GENESIS.  77 

unless  we  are  accurate  iu  both.  A  master  of  English 
may  speak  the  vilest  and  most  blundering  French. 
I  do  not  think  Mr.  Huxley  has  ever  endeavored  to 
understand  what  is  the  idea,  what  is  the  intention, 
which  his  opponent  ascribes  to  the  Mosaic  vmter,  or 
what  is  the  conception  which  his  opponent  forms  of 
the  weighty  word  Revelation.  He  holds  the  wiiter 
responsible  for  scientific  precision ;  I  look  for  nothing 
of  the  kind,  but  assign  to  him  a  statement  general, 
which  admits  exceptions ;  popular,  which  aims  mainly 
at  producing  moral  impressions ;  summary,  which  can 
not  but  be  open  to  more  or  less  of  criticism  in  detail. 
He  thinks  it  is  a  lectvu'e.  I  think  it  is  a  sermon.  He 
describes  living  creatures  by  structure.  The  Mosaic 
wi'iter  describes  them  by  habitat.  Both  I  suppose 
are  right.  I  suppose  that  description  by  habitat 
would  be  unavailing  for  the  purposes  of  science.  I 
feel  stu'e  that  description  by  structure,  stich  as  the 
geologists  supply,  would  have  been  unavailing  for  the 
purpose  of  summary  teaching  with  religious  aim. 
Of  Revelation  I  will  speak  by  and  by. 

In  order  to  institute  with  profit  the  compaiison 
now  in  view,  the  very  first  thing  necessaiy  is  to  de- 
termine, so  far  as  the  subject-matter  allows,  what  it 
was  that  the  Pentateuchal  or  Mosaic  writer  designed 
to  convey  to  the  minds  of  those  for  whom  he  wi'ote. 
The  case  is,  in  more  ways  than  one,  I  conceive,  the 
dii'ect  reverse  of  that  which  the  professor  has  alleged. 
It  is  not  bringing  Science  to  be  tried  at  the  bar  of 
Religion."  It  is  bringing  Rehgion,  so  far  as  it  is  rep- 
resented by  this  part  of  the  holy  scriptures,  to  be 
tried  at  the  bar  of  Science.  The  indictment  against 
the  Pentateuchal  writer  is,  that  he  has  written  what 
is  scientifically  untrue.     "SVe  have  to  find  then  in  the 


78  tKOEM    TO    GEKESIS. 

fii'st  place  what  it  is  that  he  has  written,  according  to 
the  text,  not  an  inerrable  text,  as  it  now  stands  be- 
fore us. 

First,  I  assume  there  is  no  dispute  that  in  Genesis 
i,  20-27,  he  has  represented  a  fourfold  sequence  or 
succession  of  living-  organisms.  Aware  of  my  own 
inability  to  define  in  any  tolerable  manner  the  classes 
of  these  organisms,  I  resorted  to  the  general  phrases 
water  -  population,  aii*  -  population,  land  -  population. 
The  immediate  purpose  of  these  phrases  was  not  to 
correspond  with  the  classifications  of  Science,  but  to 
bring  together  in  brief  and  convenient  form  the 
lai'ger  and  more  varied  modes  of  expression  used  in 
verses  20,  21,  24,  25,  of  the  chapter. 

I  think,  however,  I  have  been  to  blame  for  having 
brought  into  a  contact  with  science,  which  was  not 
sufficiently  defined,  terms  that  have  no  scientific 
meaning:  water -population,  au'-po^Dulation,  and  (two- 
fold) land-population.  I  shall  now  discard  them  and 
shall  substitute  others,  which  have  the  double  advan- 
tage of  being  used  by  geologists,  and  perhaps  of  ex- 
j)ressing  better  than  my  phrases  what  was  in  the 
mind  of  the  Mosaic  writer.  These  are  the  words : 
1,  fishes ;  2,  bu'ds ;  3,  mammals  ;*  4,  man.  By  all,  I 
think,  it  will  be  felt  that  the  first  object  is  to  know 
what  the  Pentateuchal  writer  means.  The  relation 
of  his  meaning  to  science  is  essential,  but,  in  orderly 
argumentation,  subsequent.  The  matter  now  before 
us  is  a  matter  of  reasonable  and  probable  interpreta- 
tion. What  is  the  projoer  key  to  this  hermeneutic 
work  ?     In  my  opinion  it  is  to  be  found  in  a  just  esti- 


*I  wish  to  be  understood  as  speaking  liere  of  tlie  higlier  or 
ordinary  mammals,  which  alone  I  assume  to  have  been  prob- 
ablv  known  to  the  Mosaic  writer. 


PEOEM    TO    GENESIS.  79 

mate  of  the  purjDOse  with  which  the  author  wrote,  and 
with  which  the  book  of  Genesis  was,  in  this  part  of 
it,  either  composed  or  compiled. 

If  this  be  the  true  point  of  departm-e,  it  opens  up 
a  question  of  extreme  interest,  at  which  I  have  but 
faintly  glanced  in  my  paper,  and  which  is  nowhere 
touched  in  the  reply  to  me.  What  proper  place  has 
such  a  composition  as  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  in 
such  a  work  as  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  ? 
They  ai'e  indisputably  written  with  a  religious  aim ; 
and  their  sub-matter  is  rehgious.  We  may  describe 
this  aim  in  vaiious  ways.  For  the  present  pru'pose, 
suffice  it  to  say  they  are  conversant  with  belief  in 
God,  with  inculcation  of  duties  founded  on  that 
behef,  with  history  and  prophecy  obviously  having  it 
for  theu*  central  point.  But  this  chapter,  at  the 
least  down  to  verse  25,  and  perhaps  throughout, 
stands  on  a  different  ground.  In  concise  and  raj)id 
outline,  it  traverses  a  vast  region  of  physics.  It  is 
easy  to  understand  St.  Paul  when  he  speaks  of  the 
world  as  bearing  witness  to  God  (Acts  xiv,  17 ;  Ro- 
mans i,  20).  What  he  said  was  capable  of  being  ver- 
ified or  tested  by  the  common  experimental  knowl- 
edge of  all  who  heard  him.  Of  it,  of  our  savior's 
mention  of  the  lilies — and  may  it  not  be  said  gener- 
ally of  the  references  in  scripture  to  natirral  knowl- 
edge ? — they  ai'e  at  once  accoimted  for  by  the  posi- 
tions in  which  they  stand.  But  this  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  professes  to  set  out  in  its  own  way  a 
large  and  comprehensive  scheme  of  physical  facts: 
the  transition  from  chaos  to  kosmos,  from  the  inani- 
mate to  Hfe,  from  life  in  its  lower  orders  to  man. 
Being  knowledge  of  an  order  anterior  to  the  creation 
f  Adamic  man,  it  was  beyond  verification,  as  being 


80  tKOEM    TO    GENESIS. 

beyond  experience.  As  a  physical  exposition  in  min- 
iatiu'e,  it  stands  alone  in  the  sacred  record.  And,  as 
this  singular  composition  is  solitary  in  the  Bible,  so 
it  seems  to  be  hardly  less  sohtary  in  the  sacred  books 
of  the  world.  "  The  only  imj)ortant  resemblance  of 
any  ancient  cosmogony  with  the  scriptural  account, 
is  to  be  found  in  the  Persian  or  Zoroastrian ;"  this 
Bishop  Browne  (Note  on  Gen.  i,  5)  proceeds  to  ac- 
count for  on  the  following  among  other  grounds: 
that  Zoroaster  was  probably  brought  into  contact 
with  the  Hebrews,  and  even  perhaps  with  the  prophet 
Daniel ;  a  suj^position  which  suj)plies  the  groundwork 
of  a  recent  and  remarkable  romance,  not  proceeding 
from  a  Chi'istian  school  ("  Zoroaster,"  by  F.  M.  Craw- 
ford. Macmillan,  1885).  Again,  the  Proem  does  not 
carry  any  Egyptian  marks.  In  the  twenty-seven 
thousand  lines  of  Homer,  archaic  as  they  are  and  ever 
turning  to  the  jDast,  there  is,  I  think,  only  one  (II. 
vii,  99)  which  belongs  to  physiology.  The  beautiftd 
sketch  of  a  cosmogony  by  Ovid  (Ovid,  Metam.  i, 
1-38)  seems  in  considerable  degree  to  follow  the  Mo- 
saic outline  ;  but  it  was  comj)osed  at  a  time  when  the 
treasure  of  the  Hebrew  records  had  been  for  two 
centuries  imparted,  through  the  Septuagint,  to  the 
Aryan  nations. 

Professor  Huxley,  if  I  understand  him  rightly,  con- 
siders the  Mosaic  writer,  not  perhaps  as  having 
intended  to  embrace  the  whole  truth  of  science  in  the 
province  of  geology,  but  at  least  as  hable  to  be  con- 
victed of  scientific  worthlessness  if  his  language  will 
not  stand  the  test  of  this  construction.  Thus  the 
"  water -poj)ulation  "  is  to  include  "  the  innumerable 
hosts  of  marine  invertebrated  animals."  It  seems  to 
me  that  these  discoveries,  taken  as  a  whole  and  also 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS.  81 

taken  in  all  their  parts  and  particulars,  do  not  afford 
a  proper,  I  mean  a  rational,  standard  for  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Mosaic  writer ;  that  the  recent  dis- 
covery of  the  Silurian  scorpion,  a  highly  organized 
animal,  is  of  little  moment  either  way  to  the  question 
now  before  us  ;*  that  it  is  not  an  account  of  the  ex- 
tinct species  which  we  should  consider  the  Mosaic 
writer  as  intending  to  convey;  that  while  his  words 
are  capable  of  covering  them,  as  the  oikoumenh  of 
the  New  Testament  cover  the  red  and  yellow  man, 
the  rules  of  rational  construction  recommend  and  re- 
quire our  assigning  to  them  a  more  limited  meaning, 
which  I  will  presently  describe. 

Another  material  point  in  Professor  Huxley's  inter- 
pretation appears  to  me  to  lie  altogether  beyond  the 
natural  foi'ce  of  the  words,  and  to  be  of  an  arbitrai'y 
character.  He  includes  in  it  the  proposition  that  the 
production  of  the  respective  orders  was  affected  dui-ing 
each  of  "  three  distinct  and  successive  periods  of 
time;  and  only  during  those  periods  of  time;"  or 
again,  in  one  of  these,  "  and  not  at  any  other  of 
these;"  as,  in  a  series  of  games  at  chess,  one  is  done 
before  another  begins;  or  as  in  a  "  march-past,"  one 
regiment  goes  before  another  comes.  No  doubt  there 
may  be  a  degree  of  literalism  which  will  even  suffice  to 
show  that,  as  "  as  every  winged  fowl"  was  produced  on 
the  fourth  day  of  the  Hexaemeron,  therefore  the  bhth 
of  new  fowls  continually  is  a  contradiction  to  the  text 
of  Genesis.  But  does  not  the  equity  of  common 
sense  requu-e  us  to  understand  simply  that  the  order 


♦Because  my  argument  in  no  way  requires  universal  ac- 
cordance, what  bearing  the  scorpion  may  have  on  any  current 
scientific  hypothesis,  it  is  not  for  me  to  say. 


82  PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 

of  "  winged  fowl,"  whatever  that  may  mean,  took  its 
place  in  creation  at  a  certain  time,  and  that  from  that 
time  its  various  component  classes  were  in  covu'se  of 
production?  Is  it  not  the  fact  that  in  synoptical 
statements  of  successive  events,  distributed  in  time, 
for  the  sake  of  producing  easy  and  clear  impressions, 
general  truth  is  aimed  at,  and  jDeriods  are  allowed  to 
overlap  *?  If,  with  such  a  view,  we  arrange  the  schools 
of  Greek  philosophy  in  numerical  order,  according  to 
the  dates  of  their  inception,  we  do  not  mean  that  one 
expu'ed  before  another  was  founded.  If  the  archaeol- 
ogist describes  to  us  as  successive  in  time  the  ages  of 
stone,  bronze,  and  ii'on,*  he  certainly  does  not  mean 
that  no  kinds  of  stone  implement  v/ere  invented  after 
bronze  began,  or  no  kinds  of  bronze  after  u'on  began. 
When  Thucydides  said  that  the  ancient  limited  mon- 
archies were  succeeded  by  tyrannies,  he  did  not  mean 
that  all  the  monarchs  died  at  once,  and  a  set  of  ty- 
rants, like  Deucalion's  men,  rose  up  and  took  their 
places.  Woe  be,  I  should  say,  to  anyone  who  tries 
summai'ily  to  present  in  series  the  phases  of  ancient 
facts,  if  they  are  to  be  judged  under  the  rule  of  Pro- 
fessor Huxley. 

Proceeding,  on  what  I  hold  to  be  open  ground,  to 
state  my  own  idea  of  the  true  key  to  the  meaning  of 
the  Mosaic  record,  I  suggest  that  it  was  intended  to 
give  moral,  and  not  scientific,  instruction  to  those  for 


*I  use  this  euumcration  to  illustrate  an  argument,  but  I 
must,  even  in  so  using  it,  enter  a  caveat  against  its  particu- 
lars. I  do  not  conceive  it  to  be  either  probable  or  historical 
that,  as  a  general  rule,  mankind  passed  from  the  use  of  stone 
implements  to  the  use  of  bronze,  a  composite  metal,  without 
passing  through  some  intermediate  (longer  or  shorter)  period 
of  copper. 


PKOEM    TO    GENESIS.  83 

whom  it  was  written.  That  for  the  Adamic  race,  re- 
cent on  the  earth,  and  young  in  faculties,  the  tradi- 
tions here  incorporated,  which  were  probably  fai* 
older  than  the  book,  had  a  natural  and  a  highly  moral 
pui'posa  in  conveying  to  their  minds  a  lively  sense  of 
the  wise  and  loving  care  with  which  the  almighty 
father,  who  demanded  much  at  theii-  hands,  had  be- 
forehand given  them  much,  in  the  j)rovident  adapta- 
tion of  the  world  to  be  their  dwelling-place,  and  of 
the  created  orders  of  theu'  use  and  rule.  It  aj^pears 
to  me  that,  given  the  very  nature  of  the  scriptures, 
this  is  clearly  the  rational  point  of  view.  If  it  is  so, 
then  it  follows  that  just  as  the  tradition  described 
eai'th,  ah',  and  heaven  in  the  manner  in  which  they 
superficially  presented  themselves  to  the  daily  expe- 
riences of  man — not  scientifically,  but 

The  common  air,  the  sun,  the  skies — 

so  he  spoke  of  fishes,  of  birds,  of  beasts,  of  what  man 
was  most  concerned  with  ;  and,  last  in  the  series,  of 
man  himself,  lai'gely  and  generally,  as  facts  of  his  ex- 
perience ;  from  which  great  moral  lessons  of  wonder, 
gratitude,  and  obedience  were  to  be  deduced,  to  aid 
him  in  the  great  work  of  his  life  training. 

If  fiu'ther  proof  be  wanting,  that  what  the  Mosaic 
writer  had  in  his  mind  were  the  creatures  with  which 
Adamic  man  was  conversant,  we  have  it  in  the  direct 
form  of  verse  28,  which  gives  to  man  for  meat  the 
fruit  of  every  seed-yielding  tree,  and  every  seed- 
yielding  herb,  and  the  dominion  of  every  beast,  fowl, 
and  reptile  living.  There  is  here  a  mai'ked  absence 
of  reference  to  any  but  the  then  living  species. 

This,  then,  is  the  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  book, 
and  of  the  tradition,  if,  as  I  suppose,  it  was  before 


84  PEOEM    TO    GENESIS. 

the  book,  which  seems  to  me  to  offer  the  most  prob- 
able, and  therefore  the  rational,  guide  to  its  interpre- 
tation. The  qiiestion  we  shall  have  to  face  is  whether 
this  statement  so  understood,  this  majestic  and 
touching  lesson  of  the  childhood  of  Adamic  man, 
stands  in  such  a  relation  to  scientific  truth,  as  far  as 
it  is  now  known,  as  to  give  warrant  to  the  inference 
that  the  guidance  under  which  it  was  composed  was 
more  than  that  of  faculties  merely  human,  at  that 
stage  of  development,  and  likewise  of  information, 
which  belonged  to  the  childhood  of  humanity. 

We  have,  then,  before  us  one  term  of  the  desired 
comparison.     Let  us  now  turn  to  the  other. 

And  here  my  first  duty  is  to  render  my  grateful 
thanks  to  Professor  Huxley  for  having  corrected 
my  either  erroneous  or  superannuated  assumption  as 
to  the  state  of  scientific  oj:)inion  on  the  second  and 
third  terms  of  the  fourfold  succession  of  life.  As 
one  probable  doctor  sufficed  to  make  an  opinion 
probable,  so  the  dissent  of  this  eminent  man  would 
of  itself  overthrow  and  pulverize  my  proposition  that 
there  was  a  scientific  consensus  as  to  a  sequence  like 
that  of  Genesis  in  the  production  of  animal  life,  as 
between  fishes,  birds,  mammals,  and  man.  I  shall 
compare  the  text  of  Genesis  with  geological  state- 
ments ;  but  shall  make  no  attempt,  unless  this  be  an 
attempt,  to  profit  by  a  consensus  of  geologists. 

I  suppose  it  to  be  admitted  on  all  hands  that  no 
perfectly  comprehensive  and  complete  correspond- 
ence can  be  established  between  the  terms  of  the 
Mosaic  text  and  modern  discovery.  No  one,  for  in- 
stance, could  conclude  from  it  that  which  appears  to 
be  generally  recognized,  that  a  great  reptile-age 
would  be  revealed  by  the  mesozoic  rocks. 


PEOEM    TO    GENESIS.  85 

Yet  I  think  readers  who  have  been  swept  away  by 
the  torrent  of  Mr.  Huxley's  denunciations  will  feel 
some  surprise  when  on  di'awing  summarily  into  line 
the  main  allegations,  and  especially  this  ruling  order 
of  the  Proem,  they  see  how  small  a  part  of  them  is 
brought  into  question  by  Mr.  Huxley,  and  to  how 
lai'ge  an  extent  they  are  favored  by  the  tendencies, 
presumptions,  and  even  conclusions  of  scientific  in- 
quiry. 

Fii'st,  as  to  the  cosmogony,  or  the  formation  of 
the  earth  and  the  heavenly  bodies — 

1.  The  first  operation  recorded  in  Genesis  appears 
to  be  the  formation  of  light.  It  is  detached,  appar- 
ently, from  the  waste  or  formless  elemental  mass 
(verses  2-5),  which  is  left  relatively  dark  by  its  with- 
drawal. 

2.  Next  we  hear  of  the  existence  of  vapor,  and  of 
its  condensation  into  water  on  the  siu-face  of  the 
earth  (verses  G-10).  Vegetation  subsequently  begins  : 
but  this  belongs  rather  to  geology  than  to  cosmogony 
(verses  11,  12). 

3.  In  a  new  period,  the  heavenly  bodies  are  de- 
clared to  be  fully  formed  and  visible,  dividing  the 
day  from  night  (verses  14-18). 

Under  the  guidance  particulai'ly  of  Dr.  Whewell,  I 
have  refeiTed  to  the  nebular  hyj^othesis  as  confirma- 
tory of  this  account. 

Mr.  Huxley  has  not  either  denied  the  hypothesis, 
or  argued  agaiast  it.  But  I  turn  to  Phillips's  "  Man- 
ual of  Geology,"  edited  and  adajjted  by  Mr.  Seeley 
and  Mr.  Etheridge  (1885).  It  has  a  section  in  vol.  i 
(pp.  15-19)  on  "  Modern  Speculations  Concerning 
the  Origin  of  the  Earth." 

The  first  agent  here  noticed  as  contributing  to  the 


86  PROEM    TO   GENESIS. 

work  of  production  is  the  "  gas  hydrogen  in  a  burn- 
ing state,"  which  now  forms  the  enveloping  portion 
of  the  sun's  atmosphere ;  whence  we  are  told  the  in- 
ference arises  that  the  eai-th  also  was  once  "  incan- 
descent at  its  sm-face,"  and  that  its  rocks  may  have 
been  "products  of  combustion."  Is  not  this  repre- 
sentation of  light  with  heat  for  its  ally,  as  the  first 
element  in  this  speculation,  remarkably  accordant 
with  the  oj)ening  of  the  Proem  to  Genesis "? 

Next  it  appears  that  "  the  product  of  this  combus- 
tion is  vapor,"  which  with  diminished  heat  condenses 
into  water,  and  eventually  accumulates  "  in  de- 
pressions on  the  sun's  surface  so  as  to  form  oceans 
and  seas."  "  It  is  at  least  probable  that  the  earth 
has  passed  through  a  phase  of  this  kind."  "  The 
other  planets  are  apparently  more  or  less  like  the 
earth  in  possessing  atmospheres  and  seas."  Is  there 
not  here  a  remarkable  concurrence  with  the  second 
great  aKit  of  the  cosmogony  ? 

Plainly  as  I  suppose  it  is  agreeable  to  these  sup- 
positions that,  as  vapor  gradually  passes  into  water, 
and  the  atmosphere  is  cleared,  the  full  adaptation  of 
sun  and  moon  by  visibility  for  their  functions  should 
come  in  due  sequence,  as  it  comes  in  Gen.  i,  14-18. 

Pursuing  its  subject,  the  "  Manual "  proceeds 
(p.  17) :  "  This  consideration  leads  up  to  what  has 
been  called  the  nebular  hypothesis,"  which  "  supposes 
that,  before  the  stars  existed,  the  materials  of  which 
they  consist  were  diffused  in  the  heavens  in  a  state  of 
vapor."  The  text  then  proceeds  to  describe  how 
local-centers  of  condensation  might  throw  off  rmgs, 
these  rings  break  into  planets,  and  the  planets,  under 
conditions  of  sufficient  force,  repeat  the  process,  and 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS.  87 

thus  produce  satellites  like  those  of  Satui'n,  or  like 
the  moon. 

I  therefore  think  that,  so  far  as  cosmogony  is  con- 
cerned, the  effect  of  'Mi:  Huxley's  j)aper  is  not  by 
any  means  to  leave  it  as  it  was,  but  to  leave  it 
materially  fortified  by  the  "  Manual  of  Geology,"  which 
I  understand  to  be  a  standard  of  authority  at  the 
present  time. 

Tiu'ning  now  to  the  region  of  that  science,  I 
understand  the  main  statements  of  Genesis,  in  suc- 
cessive order  of  time,  but  without  any  measurement 
of  its  divisions,  to  be  as  follows  : 

1.  A  period  of  land,  anterior  to  all  life  (verses  9, 
10). 

2.  A  period  of  vegetable  life,  anterior  to  animal 
life  (verses  11,  12.) 

3.  A  period  of  animal  life,  in  the  order  of  fishes 
(verse  20). 

4.  Another  stage  of  animal  life,  in  the  order  of 
bii-ds. 

5.  Another,  in  the  order  of  beasts  (24,  25). 

6.  Last  of  all,  man  (verses  26,  27). 

Here  is  a  chain  of  six  links,  attached  to  a  previous 
chain  of  three.  And  I  think  it  not  a  httle  remai'kable 
that  of  this  entire  succession,  the  only  step  dii'ectly 
challenged  is  that  of  numbers  fovu'  and  five,  which 
Mr.  Huxley  is  inclined  rather  to  reverse.  He  admits 
distinctly  the  seniority  of  fishes.  How  came  that 
seniority  to  be  set  down  here  ?  He  admits  as  prob- 
able upon  present  knowledge,  in  the  person  oilloino 
sapiejis,  the  juniority  of  man.  How  came  this  junior- 
ity to  be  set  down  here?  He  proceeds  indeed  to 
describe  an  opposite  opinion  concerning  man  as  hold- 
ing exactly  the  same  rank  as  the  one  to  which  he  had 


88  PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 

given  an  apparent  sanction.  As  I  do  not  precisely 
understand  the  beai'ing  of  the  terms  he  uses,  I  pass 
them  by,  and  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  referring 
presently  to  the  latest  authorities,  which  he  has  him- 
self suggested  that  I  should  consult.  But  I  add  to 
the  questions  I  have  just  j)ut  this  other  inquiry: 
How  came  the  Mosaic  writer  to  place  the  fishes  and 
the  men  in  their  true  relative  positions  not  only  to 
one  another,  and  not  only  to  the  rest  of  the  animal 
succession,  but  in  a  definite  and  that  a  true  relation 
of  time  to  the  origin  of  the  first  plant-life,  and  to  the 
colossal  ojjerations  by  which  the  earth  was  fitted  for 
them  all  ?  Mr.  Huxley  knows  very  well  that  it  would 
be  in  the  highest  degree  irrational  to  ascribe  this 
correct  distribution  to  the  doctrine  of  chances ;  nor 
will  the  stone  of  Sisyphus  of  itself  constitute  a  suffi- 
cient answer  to  inquiiies  which  are  founded,  not  upon 
a  fanciful  attempt  to  equate  every  word  of  the  Proem 
with  every  dictum  of  science,  but  upon  those  princi- 
ples of  probable  reasoning  by  which  all  rational  lives 
are  and  must  be  guided. 

I  find  the  latest  published  authority  on  geology  in 
the  second  or  Mr.  Etheridge's  volume  of  the  "  Man- 
ual "  of  Professor  Phillips,  and  by  this  I  will  now 
proceed  to  test  the  sixfold  series  which  I  have  vent- 
ured upon  presenting. 

First,  however,  looking  back  for  a  moment  to  a 
work,  obviously  of  the  highest  authority  (Paleontology, 
by  Kichard  Owen  (now  Sir  Eichard  Owen,  K.C.B.) 
Second  edition,  p.  5,  1861),  on  the  geology  of  its  day, 
I  find  in  it  a  table  of  the  order  of  appeai'ance  of 
animal  hfe  upon  the  earth,  which,  beginning  with  the 
oldest,  gives  us — 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS.  89 

1.  Invertebrates,  4.  Birds, 

2.  Fishes,  5.  Mammals, 

3.  Reptiles,  6.  Man. 

I  omit  all  reference  to  specifications,  and  speak 
only  of  the  principal  lines  of  division. 

In  the  Phillips-Etheridge  "  Manual,"  beginning  as 
before  vrith  the  oldest,  I  find  the  following  arrange- 
ment, given  partly  by  statement,  and  partly  by 
diagram. 

1.  "  The  Azoic  or  Archsean  time  of  Dana  ;  "  called 
Pre-Cambrian  by  other  physicists  (pp.  3,  5). 

2.  A  commencement  of  plant  hfe  indicated  by 
Dana  as  anterior  to  invertebrate  animal  life  ;  long 
anterior  to  the  vertebrate  forms,  which  alone  are 
mentioned  in  Genesis  (pp.  4,  5). 

3.  Three  periods  of  invertebrate  life. 

4.  Age  of  fishes. 

5.  Age  of  reptiles. 

6.  Age  of  mammals,  much  less  remote. 

7.  Age  of  man,  rCiuch  less  remote  than  mammals. 
As  to  bu'ds,  though  they  have  not  a  distinct  and 

separate  age  assigned  them,  the  "  Manual "  (vol.  i, 
ch.  XXV,  pp.  511-20)  supplies  us  very  cleai'ly  with 
their  place  in  "  the  succession  of  animal  life."  We 
ai'e  here  furnished  with  the  following  series,  after  the 
fishes.  1.  Fossil  reptiles  (p.  512);  2.  Ornithosauria 
(p.  517) ;  they  were  "  flying  animals,  which  combined 
the  characters  of  reptiles  with  those  of  bu'ds ; " 
3.  The  first  bu'ds  of  the  secondary  rocks  with 
"  feathers  ia  all  I'espects  similar  to  those  of  existing 
birds  "  (p.  518) ;  4.  Mammals  (p.  520). 

I  have  been  permitted  to  see  in  proof  another 
statement  from  an  authority  still  more  recent,  Pro- 
fessor  Prestwich,  which    is    now   passing    through 


90  PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 

the  jDi-ess.     In  it  (pp.   80,   81)  I  find  the  following 
seniority  assigned  to  the  orders  which  I  here  name : 

1.  Plants  (cryptogamous),         4.  Mammals, 

2.  Fishes,  5.  Man. 

3.  Buds, 

It  will  now,  I  hope,  be  observed  that,  according  to 
the  probable  intention  of  the  Mosaic  writer,  these  five 
orders  enumerated  by  him  correspond  with  the  state 
of  geological  knowledge  presented  to  us  by  the  most 
recent  authorities  in  this  sense  ;  that  the  origins  of 
these  orders  respectively  have  the  same  succession  as 
is  assigned  in  Genesis  to  those  representatives  of  the 
orders,  which  alone  were  probably  known  to  the  ex- 
perience of  Adamic  man.  My  fourfold  succession 
thus  grows  into  a  fivefold  one.  By  placing  before 
the  first  plant-life  the  azoic  period,  it  becomes  sixfold. 
And  again,  by  placing  before  this  the  principal  stages 
of  the  cosmogony,  it  becomes,  according  as  they  are 
stated,  nine  or  ten  fold ;  every  portion  holding  the 
place  most  agreeable  to  modern  hypothesis  and 
modern  science  respectively. 

I  now  notice  the  points  in  which,  so  far  as  I  tmder- 
stand,  the  text  of  the  Proem,  as  it  stands,  is  either 
incomplete  or  at  variance  with  the  representations  of 
science. 

1.  It  does  not  notice  the  great  periods  of  inver- 
tebrate life  standing  between  (1)  and  (2)  of  my  last 
enumeration. 

2.  It  also  passes  by  the  great  age  of  reptiles,  with 
their  antecessors,  the  Afnphibia,  which  come  between 
(2)  and  (3).  The  secondary  or  Mesozoic  j)eriod,  says 
the  "Manual"  (i,  511),  "has  often  been  termed  the 
age  of  reptiles." 

3.  It  mentions  plants  in  terms  which,  I  understand 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS.  91 

from  Professor  Huxley  and    otherwise,    coiTespond 
with  the  later,  not  the  eai'lier,  forms  of  plant  life. 

4.  It  mentions  reptUes  in  the  same  category  with 
its  mammals. 

Now,  as  regards  the  first  two  heads,  these  omis- 
sions, enormous  with  reference  to  the  scientific 
record,  are  completely  in  hai'mony  with  the  probable 
aim  of  the  Mosaic  writer,  as  embracing  only  the 
formation  of  the  objects  and  creatures  with  which 
early  man  was  conversant.  The  introduction  of  these 
orders,  invisible  and  unknown,  would  have  been  not 
agreeable,  but  injurious,  to  his  purpose. 

As  respects  the  thu'd,  it  will  strike  the  reader  of 
the  Proem  that  plant  life  (verses  11,  12)  is  mentioned 
with  a  particularity  which  is  not  found  in  the  accounts 
of  the  hving  orders  ;  nor  in  the  second  notice  of  the 
creation,  which  appears,  indeed,  pretty  distinctly  to 
refer  to  recent  plant-life  (Gen.  ii,  5,  8,  9).  Questions 
have  been  raised  as  to  the  translation  of  these  pas- 
sages, which  I  am  not  able  to  solve.  But  I  bear  in 
mind  the  difficulties  which  attend  both  oral  traditions 
and  the  conversation  of  ancient  MS.,  and  I  am  not  in 
any  way  troubled  by  the  discrepancy  before  us,  if  it 
be  a  discrepancy,  as  it  is  the  general  structui-e  and 
effect  of  the  Mosaic  statement  on  which  I  take  my 
stand. 

With  regard  to  reptiles,  while  I  should  also  hold 
by  my  last  remark,  the  case  is  different.  They  ap- 
peal' to  be  mentioned  as  contemporary  with  mammals, 
whereas  they  are  of  prior  origin.  But  the  relative 
significance  of  the  several  orders  evidently  affected 
the  method  of  the  Mosaic  writer.  Agreeably  to  this 
idea,  insects  are  not  named  at  all.  So  reptiles  ai'e  a 
family  fallen  from  greatness ;  instead  of  stamping  on 


92  PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 

a  great  period  of  life  its  leading  character,  they 
merely  skulked  upon  the  earth.  They  are  introduced, 
as  will  appear  better  from  the  LXX  than  from  the 
A.y.  or  E.V.,  as  a  sort  of  appendage  to  mammals. 
Lying  outside  both  the  use  and  the  dominion  of  man, 
and  far  less  within  his  probable  notice,  they  are  not 
wholly  omitted  like  insects,  but  treated  appai'ently  in 
a  loose  manner  as  not  one  of  the  main  features  of  the 
pictures  which  the  writer  meant  to  di'aw.  In  the 
Song  of  the  Three  Childi'en,  where  the  foui*  princijial 
orders  are  recited  after  the  series  in  Genesis,  reptiles 
are  dropped  altogether,  which  suggests  either  that 
the  present  text  is  unsound,  or,  perhaps,  more  prob- 
ably, that  they  were  deemed  a  secondary  and  insig- 
nificant part  of  it.  But,  however  this  case  may  be 
regarded,  of  course  I  cannot  di'aw  from  it  any  sup- 
port to  my  general  contention. 

I  distinguish,  then,  in  the  broadest  manner,  be- 
tween Professor  Huxley's  exposition  of  certain  facts 
of  science,  and  his  treatment  of  the  book  of  Genesis. 
I  accept  the  first,  with  the  reference  due  to  a  great 
teacher  from  the  meanest  of  his  hearers,  as  a  needed 
correction  to  myself,  and  a  valuable  instruction  for 
the  world.  But,  subject  to  that  correction,  I  adhere 
to  my  proposition  respecting  the  fovirfold  succession 
in  the  Proem  ;  which  f ui'ther  I  extend  to  a  fivefold 
succession  respecting  life,  and  to  the  great  stages  of 
the  cosmogony  to  boot.  The  five  origins,  or  first 
appearances  of  plants,  fishes,  bii'ds,  mammals,  and 
man,  are  given  to  us  in  Genesis  in  the  order  of  suc- 
cession in  which  they  are  also  given  by  the  latest 
geological  authorities. 

It  is,  therefore,  by  attaching  to  words  a  sense  they 
were  never  meant  to  bear,  and  by  this  only,  that  Mr. 


PKOEM    TO    GENESIS.  93 

Huxley  establishes  the  parallels  (so  to  speak)  from 
which  he  works  his  heavy  artillery.  Land-population 
is  a  phi'ase  meant  by  me  to  describe  the  idea  of  the  Mo- 
saic writer,  which  I  conceive  to  be  that  of  the  animals 
familiarly  known  to  early  man.  But,  by  treating  this 
as  a  scientific  phrase,  it  is  made  to  include  extinct 
reptiles,  which  I  understand  Mr.  Huxley  to  treat  as 
being  land-animals ;  as,  by  taking  birds  of  a  very 
high  formation,  it  may  be  held  that  mammal  forms 
existed  before  such  birds  were  produced.  These  are 
artificial  contradictions,  set  up  by  altering  in  its 
essence  one  of  the  two  things  which  it  is  sought  to 
compare. 

If  I  am  asked  whether  I  contend  for  the  absolute 
accordance  of  the  Mosaic  writer,  as  interpreted  by 
me,  with  the  facts  and  presumptions  of  science,  as  I 
have  endeavored  to  extract  them  from  the  best 
authorities,  I  answer  that  I  have  not  endeavored  to 
show  either  that  any  accordance  has  been  demon- 
strated, or  that  more  than  a  substantial  accordance — 
an  accordance  in  principal  relevant  particulars — is  to 
be  accepted  as  shown  by  probable  evidence. 

In  the  cosmogony  of  the  Proem,  which  stands  on  a 
distinct  footing  as  lying  wholly  beyond  the  experi- 
ence of  primitive  man,  I  am  not  aware  that  any  seri- 
ous flaw  is  alleged ;  but  the  nebular  hypothesis  with 
which  it  is  compared  appears  to  be,  perhaps  from  the 
necessity  of  the  case,  no  more  than  a  theory ;  a  the- 
ory, however,  long  discussed,  much  favored,  and 
widely  accepted  in  the  scientific  world. 

In  the  geological  part,  we  are  liable  to  those  modi- 
fications or  displacements  of  testimony  which  the 
future  progress  of  the  science  may  produce.  In  this 
view  its  testimony  does  not  in  strictness  pass,  I  sup- 


94  PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 

jjose,  out  of  the  category  of  jDrobable  into  that  of  de- 
monstrative evidence.  Yet  it  can  hardly  be  supposed 
that  careful  researches,  and  reasonings  strictly  ad- 
justed to  method,  both  continued  through  some  gen- 
erations, have  not  in  a  large  measui'e  produced  what 
has  the  character  of  real  knowledge.  With  that  real 
knowledge  the  reader  will  now  have  seen  how  far  I 
claim  for  the  Proem  of  Genesis,  fau'ly  tried,  to  be  in 
real  and  most  striking  accordanca 

And  this  brings  me  to  the  point  at  which  I  have  to 
observe  that  'Mr.  Huxley,  I  think,  has  not  mastered, 
and  probably  has  not  tried  to  master,  the  idea  of  his 
opponent  as  to  what  it  is  that  is  essentially  embraced 
in  the  idea  of  a  divine  revelation  to  man. 

So  far  as  I  am  aware,  there  is  no  definition,  prop- 
erly so  called,  of  revelation  either  contained  in  script- 
ure or  established  by  the  general  and  permanent 
consent  of  Christians.  In  a  word  polemically  used, 
of  indeterminate  or  variable  sense,  Professor  Huxley 
has  no  title  to  impute  to  his  opponent,  without  in- 
quu-y,  anything  more  than  it  must  of  necessity  convey. 
But  he  seems  to  assume  that  revelation  is  to 
be  conceived  of  as  if  it  were  a  lawyer's  parch- 
ment, or  a  sum  in  arithmetic,  wherein  a  flaw  discov- 
ered at  a  particular  point  in  ipso  facto  iatal  to  the 
whole.  Very  little  refleccion  would  show  Professor 
Huxley  that  there  may  be  those  who  find  evidences 
of  the  communication  of  divine  knowledge  in  the 
Proem  to  Genesis  as  they  read  it  in  their  Bibles, 
without  approaching  to  any  such  conception.  There 
is  the  uncertainty  of  translation ;  translators  are  not 
inspked.  There  is  the  difficulty  of  transcription; 
transcribers  are  not  inspired,  and  an  element  of  error 
is  inseparable  from  the  work  of  a  series  of  copyists. 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS.  95 

How  this  works  in  the  long  courses  of  time  we  see  in 
the  varying  texts  of  the  Old  Testament,  with  rival 
claims  not  easy  to  adjust.  Thus  the  authors  of  the 
recent  Revision  (Preface  to  the  Old  Testament,  p.  vi) 
have  had  to  choose  in  the  Massoretic  text  itself  be- 
tween different  readings,  and  "  in  excej^tional  cases  " 
have  given  a  preference  to  the  ancient  versions. 
Thus,  upon  practical  grounds  quite  apai't  from  the 
higher  questions  concerning  the  original  composition, 
we  seem  at  once  to  find  a  human  element  in  the  sa- 
cred text.  That  there  is  a  fui'ther  and  larger  ques- 
tion, not  shut  out  from  the  view  even  of  the  most 
convinced  and  sincere  believers,  Mr.  Huxley  may  per- 
ceive by  reading,  for  examjDle,  Coleridge's  "  Confes- 
sions of  an  Inquiring  Sphit."  The  question  whether 
this  Proem  bears  witness  to  a  divine  communication, 
to  a  working  beyond  that  of  merely  human  faculties 
in  the  composition  of  the  scriptui'es,  is  essentially  one 
for  the  disciples  of  Bishop  Butler ;  a  question,  not  of 
demonstrative,  but  of  j)robable,  evidence.  I  am  not 
prepared  to  abandon,  but  rather  to  defend,  the  fol- 
lowing projDosition  :  It  is  perfectly  conceivable  that 
a  document  penned  by  the  human  hand,  and  trans- 
mitted by  human  means,  may  contain  matter  ques- 
tionable, uncertain,  or  even  mistaken,  and  yet  may  by 
its  contents  as  a  whole  present  such  ttIotsi?,  such 
moral  proofs  of  truth  divinely  imparted,  as  ought 
u'refragably  />ro  tanto  to  command  assent  and  govern 
practice.  A  man  may  possibly  admit  something  not 
reconciled,  and  yet  may  be  what  Mr.  Huxley  de- 
nounces as  a  Reconciler. 

I  do  not  suppose  it  would  be  feasible,  even  for 
Professor  Huxley,  taking  the  nebular  hypothesis  and 
geological  discovery  for  his  guides,  to  give,  in  the 


96  PEOEM    TO    GENESIS. 

compass  of  the  first  twenty -seven  verses  of  Genesis, 
an  account  of  the  cosmogony,  and  of  the  succession 
of  Hfe  in  the  stratification  of  the  earth,  which  would 
combine  scientific  precision  of  statement  with  the 
majesty,  the  simpHcity,  the  inteUigibility,  and  the 
imiDressiveness  of  the  record  before  us.  Let  us  mod- 
estly call  it,  for  argument's  sake,  an  ajDproximation  to 
the  present  presumj)tions  and  conclusions  of  science. 
Let  me  assume  that  the  statement  in  the  text  as  to 
plants,  and  the  statement  of  vei'ses  24,  25  as  to  rep- 
tiles, cannot  in  all  points  be  sustained ;  and  yet  still 
there  remain  great  unshaken  facts  to  be  weighed. 
First,  the  fact  that  such  a  record  shordd  have  been 
made  at  all.  Secondly,  the  fact  that,  instead  of 
dwelling  in  generalities,  it  has  placed  itself  under  the 
severe  conditions  of  a  chronological  order,  reaching 
from  the  first  j  ids  us  of  chaotic  matter  to  the  consum- 
mated production  of  a  fau*  and  goodly,  a  furnished 
and  a  peopled,  world.  Thhdly,  the  fact  that  its  cos- 
mogony seems,  in  the  light  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
to  draw  more  and  more  of  countenance  from  the 
best  natui'al  philosoj)hy;  and  fourthly,  that  it  has 
described  the  successive  origins  of  the  five  great  cate- 
gories of  present  life,  with  which  human  experience 
was  and  is  conversant,  in  that  order  which  geological 
authority  confirms.  How  came  these  things  to  be  ? 
How  came  they  to  be,  not  among  Accadians,  or  As- 
syrians, or  Egyptians,  who  monoiDolized  the  stores  of 
human  knowledge  when  this  wonderful  tradition  was 
born;  but  among  the  obscui'e  records  of  a  people 
who,  dwelling  in  Palestine  for  twelve  hundred  years 
from  their  sojoui'n  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile,  hardly 
had  force  to  stamp  even  so  much  as  theu*  name  upon 
the  history  of  the  world  at  large,  and  only  then  began 


PKOEM    TO    GENESIS.  97 

to  be  admitted  to  the  general  communion  of  mankind 
when  theu'  scriptui-es  assumed  the  di-ess  which  a 
gentile  tongue  was  needed  to  supply  ?  It  is  more 
rational,  I  contend,  to  say  that  these  astonishing  an- 
ticipations were  a  God-given  supply,  than  to  suppose 
that  a  race,  who  fell  uniformly  and  entu-ely  short  of 
the  great  intellectual  development*  of  antiquity, 
should  here  not  only  have  equaled  and  outstripped  it, 
but  have  entirely  transcended,  in  land  even  more  than 
in  degree,  all  known  exercise  of  human  faculties. 

Whether  this  was  knowledge  conveyed  to  the  mind 
of  the  Mosaic  author,  I  do  not  j^resume  to  determine. 
There  has  been,  in  the  belief  of  Christians,  a  profound 
providential  purpose,  little  or  variously  visible  to  us, 
which  presided  from  Genesis  to  the  Apocalypse,  over 
the  formation  of  the  marvelous  compound  w^hich  we 
term  the  Holy  Scrij^tui-es.  This  we  wonderingly  em- 
brace mthout  being  much  perplexed  by  the  questions 
which  are  raised  on  them ;  for  instance,  by  the  ques- 
tion, in  what  exact  relation  the  books  of  the  Apoc- 
rypha, sometimes  termed  deutero-canonical,  stand 
to  the  books  of  the  Hebrew  Canon.  Difficulties  of 
detail,  such  as  may  (or  ultimately  may  not)  be  found 
to  exist  in  the  Proem  to  Genesis,  have  much  the  same 
relation  to  the  evidence  of  revealed  knowledge  in  this 
record  as  the  spots  in  the  sun  to  his  all-unfolding 
and  sufficing  light.  But  as  to  the  Mosaic  writer  him- 
self, all  I  presume  to  accept  is  the  fact  that  he  put 


*I  write  thus  bearing  fully  in  mind  the  unsurpassed  sub- 
limity of  much  that  is  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  consideration  of  this  subject  would  open  a  wholly  new 
line  of  argument,  which  the  present  article  does  not  allow  me 
to  attempt. 


98  PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 

upon  undying  record,  in  this  portion  of  liis  work,  a 
series  of  pai'ticulars  which,  interpreted  in  the  gi'ow- 
ing  Hght  of  modern  knowledge,  requii-e  from  us,  on 
the  whole,  as  reasonable  men,  the  admission  that  we 
do  not  see  how  he  could  have  written  them,  and  that 
in  all  likelihood  he  did  not  write  them,  without  aid 
from  the  guidance  of  a  more  than  human  power.  It 
is  in  this  guidance,  and  not  necessarily  or  uniformly 
in  the  consciousness  of  the  writer,  that,  according  to 
my  j)oor  conception,  the  idea  of  revelation  mainly  lies. 

And  now  one  word  on  the  subject  of  evolution.  I 
cannot  follow  Mr.  Huxley  in  his  minute  acquaintance 
with  Indian  sages,  and  I  am  not  aware  that  evolution 
has  a  place  in  the  greater  niunber  of  the  schools  of 
Greek  philosophy.  Nor  can  I  comprehend  the  rapidity 
with  which  j^ersons  of  authority  have  come  to  treat 
the  Darwinian  hypothesis  as  having  reached  the  final 
stage  of  demonstration.  To  the  eye  of  a  looker-on 
their  pace  and  method  seem  rather  too  much  like  a 
steeplechase.  But  this  may  very  well  be  due  to  their 
want  of  appropriate  knowledge  and  habits  of  thought. 
For  myself,  in  my  loose  and  uninformed  way  of 
looking  at  evolution,  I  feel  only  too  much  biased  in 
its  favor  by  what  I  conceive  to  be  its  relation  to  the 
great  argument  of  design.* 

Not  that  I  share  the  horror  with  which  some  men 
of  science  appear  to  contemj)late  a  multitude  of  what 
they  term    "  sudden "   acts   of   creation.     All  things 


*"  Views  like  these,  when  formulated  by  religious  instead 
of  scientific  thought,  make  more  of  divine  providence  and 
fore-ordination  than  of  divine  intervention ;  but  perhaps 
they  are  not  the  less  theistical  on  that  account."  From  the 
very  remarkable  lectures  of  Professor  Asa  Gray  on  ' '  Natural 
Science  and  Religion,"  j).  77.     Scribner,  New  York,  1880. 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS.  99 

considei'ed,  a  singular  expression :  but  one,  I  sup- 
pose, meaning  the  act  which  produces,  in  the  region 
of  nature,  something  not  related  by  an  unbroken  suc- 
cession of  measured  and  equable  stages  to  what  has 
gone  before  it.  But  what  has  equality  or  brevity  of 
stage  to  do  with  the  question  how  fai'  the  act  is  crea- 
tive ?  I  fail  to  see,  or  indeed  am  somewhat  disposed 
to  deny,  that  the  short  stage  is  less  creative  than  the 
long,  the  single  than  the  manifold,  the  equable  than 
the  jointed  or  graduated  stage.  Evolution  is,  to  me, 
series  with  development.  And  like  series  in  mathe- 
matics, whether  arithmetical  or  geometrical,  it 
estabhshes  in  things  an  unbroken  jDrogression ;  it 
places  each  thing  (if  only  it  stand  the  test  of  ability 
to  live)  in  a  distinct  relation  to  every  other  thing, 
and  makes  each  a  witness  to  all  that  have  preceded 
it,  a  prophecy  of  all  that  are  to  follow  it.  It  gives 
to  the  argument  of  design,  now  called  teleological 
argument,  at  once  a  wider  expansion,  and  an  aug- 
mented tenacity  and  solidity  of  tissue.  But  I  must 
proceed. 

I  find  Mr.  Huxley  asserting  that  the  things  of 
science,  with  which  he  is  so  splendidly  conversant, 
are  "  susceptible  of  clear  intellectual  comprehension." 
Is  this  rhetoric,  or  is  it  a  formula  of  philosoj)hy  ?  If 
the  latter,  will  it  bear  examination  I  He  preeminently 
understands  the  I'elations  between  those  things  which 
Nature  offers  to  his  view;  but  does  he  understand 
each  thing  in  itself,  or  hoio  the  last  term  but  one  in 
an  evolution  series  passes  into  and  becomes  the  last? 
The  seed  may  produce  the  tree,  the  tree  the  branch, 
the  branch  the  twig,  the  twig  the  leaf  or  flower ;  but 
can  we  understand  the  slightest  mutation  or  growth 
of  Nature  in  itself "?    Can  we  tell  hoio  the  twig  passes 


100  PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 

into  leaf  or  flower,  one  jot  more  tlian  if  the  flower  or 
leaf,  instead  of  coming  from  tlie  twig,  came  directly 
from  the  tree  or  from  the  seed  ? 

I  cannot  but  trace  some  signs  of  baste  in  Professor 
Huxley's  assertion  that,  outside  tbe  province  of 
science,  we  bave  only  imagination,  bope,  and  igno- 
rance. Not,  as  we  sball  presently  see,  tbat  be  is  one 
of  tbose  who  rob  mankind  of  tbe  best  and  bigbest  of 
tbeir  inberitance,  by  denying  tbe  reality  of  all  but 
material  objects.  But  tbe  statement  is  sui'ely  open 
to  objection,  as  omitting,  or  seeming  to  omit,  from 
view  tbe  vast  fields  of  knowledge  only  j)robable, 
wbicb  are  not  of  mere  bope,  nor  of  mere  imagination, 
nor  of  mere  ignorance ;  wbicb  include  alike  tbe 
inward  and  tbe  outward  life  of  man ;  witbin  wbicb 
lie  tbe  real  instruments  of  bis  training,  and  wbere  be 
is  to  learn  bow  to  tbink,  to  act,  to  be. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  notice  briefly  tbe  last  page 
of  Professor  Huxley's  paper,  in  wbicb  be  drops  tbe 
scientist  and  becomes  simply  tbe  man.  I  read  it  witb 
deej)  interest,  and  witb  no  small  sympatby.  In 
toucbing  upon  it,  I  sball  make  no  reference  (let  bim 
forgive  me  tbe  expression)  to  bis  "  danonatory 
clauses,"  or  to  bis  barmless  menace,  so  deftly  con- 
veyed tbrougb  tbe  propbet  Micab,  to  tbe  public  peace. 

Tbe  exaltation  of  Religion  as  against  Tbeology  is 
at  tbe  present  day  not  only  so  f asbionable,  but  usu- 
ally so  domineering  and  contemjDtuous,  tbat  I  am 
grateful  to  Professor  Huxley  for  bis  frank  statement 
tbat  Tbeology  is  a  brancb  of  science ;  nor  do  I  in  tbe 
smallest  degree  quarrel  witb  bis  contention  tbat  Re- 
ligion and  Tbeology  ougbt  not  to  be  confounded. 
We  may  bave  a  great  deal  of  Religion  witb  very  little 
Tbeology ;  and  a  great  deal  of  Tbeology  witb  very 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS.  101 

little  Religion.  I  feel  sure  that  Professor  Huxley 
must  observe  with  pleasure  how  strongly  practical, 
ethical,  and  social  is  the  general  tenor  of  the  thi-ee 
synoptic  gospels ;  and  how  the  appearance  in  the 
world  of  the  great  doctrinal  gospel  was  reserved  to  a 
later  stage,  as  if  to  meet  a  later  need,  when  men  had 
been  toned  "anew  by  the  morality  and,  above  all,  by 
the  life,  of  our  Lord. 

I  am  not,  therefore,  writing  against  him,  when  I 
remark  upon  the  habit  of  treating  Theology  with  an 
affectation  of  contempt.  It  is  nothing  better,  I  be- 
lieve, than  a  mere  fashion  ;  having  no  more  reference 
to  permanent  principle  than  the  mass  of  ephemeral 
fashions  that  come  from  Paris  have  with  the  immov- 
able types  of  beauty.  Those  who  take  for  the  bm'den 
of  their  song,  "  Respect  Religion,  but  despise  Theol- 
ogy," seem  to  me  just  as  rational  as  if  a  person  were 
to  say,  "  Admire  the  trees,  the  plants,  the  flowers, 
the  sun,  moon,  or  stars,  but  despise  botany,  and  de- 
spise astronomy."  Theology  is  ordered  knowledge; 
representing  in  the  region  of  the  intellect  what  relig- 
ion represents  in  the  heart  and  life  of  man.  And  this 
religion,  Mr.  Huxley  says  a  little  further  on,  is 
summed  up  in  the  terms  of  the  prophet  Micah 
(vi,  8):  "  Do  justly,  and  love  mercy,  and  walk  hum- 
bly with  thy  God."  I  forbear  to  inquire  whether 
every  addition  to  this — such,  for  instance,  as  the 
Beatitudes — is  to  be  proscribed.  But  I  will  not  dis- 
pute that  in  these  words  is  conveyed  the  true  ideal 
of  religious  discipline  and  attainment.  They  really 
import  that  identification  of  the  will  which  is  set  out 
with  such  wonderful  force  in  the  very  simple  words 
of  the  "Paradiso:" 

In  la  sua  volontade  6  nostra  pace, 


102  PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 

and  whicli  no  one  lias  more  beautifully  described  than 
(I  think)  Charles  Lamb:  "  He  gave  his  heai't  to  the 
Purifier,  his  will  to  the  Will  that  governs  the  uni- 
uerse."  It  may  be  we  shall  find  that  Christianity 
itself  is  in  some  sort  a  seafiblding,  and  that  the  final 
building  is  a  pure  and  perfect  theism :  when  (1  Cor. 
XV,  21,  28)  "the  kingdom  shall  be  dehvered  ui?  to 
God,"  "  that  God  may  be  all  in  all."  Still,  I  cannot 
help  being  struck  with  an  impression  that  Mr.  Huxley 
api^ears  to  cite  these  terms  of  Micah,  as  if  they  re- 
duced the  work  of  religion  from  a  difficult  to  a  very 
easy  performance.  But  look  at  them  again.  Examine 
them  well.     They  ai'e,  in  truth,  in  CowjDer's  words. 

Higher  than  the  hights  above, 
Deeper  than  the  depths  beneath. 

Do  justly,  that  is  to  say,  extinguish  self ;  love  mercy, 
cut  utterly  away  all  the  pride  and  wrath,  and  all  the 
cujiidity,  that  make  this  fair  world  a  wilderness; 
walk  humbly  with  thy  God,  take  his  will  and  set  it  in 
the  place  where  thine  own  was  used  to  nile.  "  Ring 
out  the  old,  ring  in  the  new."  Pluck  down  the  ty- 
rant from  his  place ;  set  up  the  true  Master  on  his 
lawful  throne. 

There  are  certainly  human  beings,  of  happy  com- 
position, who  mount  these  airy  hights  with  elastic 
step  and  with  unabated  breath. 

Sponta  sua,  sine  lege,  fidem  rectumque  colebat. 

—  Ovid,  Metam.  i,  90. 

This  comparative  refinement  of  nature  in  some  may 
even  lead  them  to  undervalue  the  stores  of  that  rich 
armory  which  Christianity  has  provided  to  equip  us 
for  om-  great  life-battle.  The  text  of  the  j^rophet 
Micah,  developed  into  all  the  breadth  of  St.  Paul  and 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS.  103 

St.  Augustine,  is  not  too  much — is  it  not  often  all  too 
little? — for  the  needs  of  ordinary  men. 

I  must  now  turn,  by  way  of  epilogue,  to  Professor 
Max  MuUer  j  and  I  hope  to  show  him  that  on  the 
questions  which  he  raises  we  are  not  very  far  apart. 
One  grievous  wrong,  indeed,  he  does  me  in  (appar- 
ently) ascribing  to  me  the  execrable  word  "  theanthi'o- 
morphic,"  of  which  I  wholly  disclaim  the  paternity, 
and  deny  the  use.  Then  he  says,  I  warn  him  not  to 
trust  too  much  to  etymology.  Not  so.  But  only  not 
to  trust  to  it  for  the  wrong  purpose,  in  the  wrong 
place ;  just  as  I  should  not  preach  on  the  virtue  and 
value  of  liberty  to  a  man  requii'ing  handcuffs.  I  hap- 
pen to  bear  a  name  known,  in  its  genuine  form,  to 
mean  stones  or  rocks  frequented  by  the  gled;  and 
probably  taken  from  the  habitat  of  its  first  bearer. 
Now,  if  any  human  being  should'ever  hereafter  make 
any  inquiry  about  me,  trace  my  name  to  its  origin, 
and  therefore  describe  the  situation  of  my  dwelling, 
he  would  not  use  etymology  too  much  but  would  use 
it  ill.  What  I  protest  against  is  a  practice,  not  with- 
out example,  of  taking  the  etymology  of  mythologic 
names  in  Homer,  and  thereupon  supposing  that  in  all 
cases  we  have  thus  obtained  a  guide  to  their  Homeric 
sense.  The  place  of  Nereus  in  the  mind  of  the  poet 
is  indisputable ;  and  here  etymology  helps  us.  But 
when  a  light-etymology  is  found  for  Hera,  and  it  is 
therefore  asserted  that  in  Homer  she  is  a  light-god- 
dess, or  when,  because  no"  one  denies  that  Phoihos  is 
a  hght-name,  therefore  the  Apollo  of  Homer  was  the 
Sun,  then  indeed,  not  etymology,  but  the  misuse  of 
etymology,  hinders  and  misleads  us.  In  a  ques- 
tion of  etymology,  however,  I  shall  no  more  meas- 


104  PKOEM    TO    GENESIS.    ■ 

ure  swords  with  Mi-.  Max  Miiller  than  with  Mi-. 
Huxley  in  a  matter  of  natural  science,  and  this  for  the 
simple  reason  that  my  sword  is  but  a  lath.  I  there- 
fore surrender  to  the  mercy  of  this  great  philologist 
the  derivation  of  dine  and  diner  from  dejeuner; 
which  may  have  been  suggested  by  the  use  of  the  word 
dine  in  our  Bible  (as  John  xxi,  12)  for  breakfasting; 
a  sense  expressed  by  La  Bruyere  (xi)  in  the  words, 
"  Cliton  '}C  a  jamais  eu.  toute  sa  vie,  que  deux  affaires, 
qui  sont  de  diner  le  matin,  et  de  souper  le  soir." 

But,  Mr.  Max  Miiller  says,  I  have  offended  against 
the  fundamental  principles  of  comparative  mythology. 
How,  where,  and  why  have  I  thus  tumbled  into 
mortal  sin  ?  By  attacking  solarism.  But  what  have 
I  attacked,  and  what  has  he  defended  ?  I  have 
attacked  nothing  but  the  exclusive  use  of  the  solar 
theory  to  solve  all  the  problems  of  the  Aryan  relig- 
ions ;  and  it  is  to  th'is  monopolizing  pretension  that  I 
seek  to  ajiply  the  name  of  solarism,  while  admitting 
that  "  the  solar  theory  has  a  most  important  place" 
in  solving  such  problems.  But  my  vis-a-vis,  whom  I 
really  cannot  call  my  opj)onent,  declares  that  the 
solarism  I  denounce  is  not  his  solarism  at  all ;  and 
he  only  seeks  to  prove  that  "  certain  portions  of 
ancient  mythology  have  a  directly  solar  origin."  So 
it  proves  that  I  attack  only  what  he  rejDudiates,  and 
I  defend  what  he  defends.  That  is,  I  humbly  sub- 
scribe to  a  doctrine  which  he  has  made  famous 
throughout  the  civilized  world. 

It  is  only  when  a  yoke  is  put  upon  Homer's  neck 
that  I  presume  to  cry  "  hands  off!  "  The  Olympian 
system,  of  which  Homer  is  the  great  architect,  is  a 
marvelous  and  splendid  structure.  Following  the 
guidance  of  ethnological  affinities  and  memories,  it  in- 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS.  105 

corporates  in  itself  tlie  most  diversified  traditions, 
and  binds  them  into  a  unity  by  the  plastic  power  of 
an  unsiu-passed  creative  imagination.  Its  dominating 
spirit  is  intensely  human.'  It  is  therefore  of  necessity 
thoroughly  anti-elemental.  Yet,  when  the  stones  of 
this  magnificent  fabric  are  singly  eyed  by  the  ob- 
server, they  bear*  obvious  marks  of  having  been 
appropriated  from  elsewhere  by  the  sovereign  pre- 
rogative of  genius ;  of  having  had  an  anterior  place 
in  other  systems  ;  of  having  belonged  to  nature- woi'- 
ship,  and  in  some  cases  to  sun-worship ;  of  having  been 
drawn  from  many  quarters,  and  among  them  from 
those  which  ]\Ii\  Max  Miiller  excludes  :  from  Egypt, 
and  either  from  Palestine,  or  from  the  same  tradi- 
tional source  to  which  Palestine  itself  was  indebted. 
But  this  is  not  the  joresent  question.  As  to  the  solar 
theory,  I  hope  I  have  shown  either  that  our  positions 
are  now  identical,  or  that,  if  th-ere  be  a  rift  between 
them,  it  is  so  narrow  that  we  may  conveniently  shake 
hands  across  it. 

W.  E.  Gladstone. 


PosTSCEiPT. — I  learn  with  satisfaction  that  in 
America,  where  the  stores  of  geological  knowledge 
have  been  so  greatly  enlarged,  the  business  of  the 
Keconciler  has  been  taken  into  the  hands  of  scient- 
ists :  Dr.  Dana,  Professor  of  Geology  in  Yale  Col- 
lege, and  Dr.  Ai-nold  Guyot,  Professor  of  Geology 
and  Physical  Geography  in  New  Jersey  College. 
Both  of  these  authorities,  it  appeal's,  have  adhered 
through  a  long  career,  and  now  adhere  with  increased 
confidence,  to  the  idea  of  a  substantial  harmony  be- 
tween science  and  the  Mosaic  text.  Professor  Dana's 
latest  tract  has  recently  appeared  in  the  Bibliotheca 


106  PROEM   to    6EKES1S. 

Sacra  for  April,  1885.  He  thinks  the  evidence  doubt- 
ful as  to  the  priority  of  birds  over  the  low  or  marsu- 
pian  mammals  (p.  214);  but  strong  for  an  abundant 
early  plant-life  in  the  Azoic  period  (p.  213);  and  he 
holds  with  Professor  Guyot,  that  the  first,  or  cos- 
mogonical,  portion  of  the  Proem  not  only  accords 
with,  but  teaches,  the  nebulai'  hypothesis  (p.  220). 

It  is  a  relief  to  find  that  the  bui'den  of  this  argu- 
ment is  shared  with  witnesses  who  are  competent  and 
unsuspected  on  the  scientific  side ;  and  who  will  not 
be  liable  to  a  repetition  mutatis  mutandis  of  an  old 
objection:  "  This  people,  which  kno?vethnot  the  law, 
is  accursed"  (St.  John  vii,  49). 

Mr.  Marsh,  Professor  of  Paleontology  in  Yale  Col- 
lege, holds  (Ornithodontes,  1880,  p.  137),  on  the 
grounds  of  the  wide  differences  between  the  archceop- 
teryx  and  the  other  types  of  early  birds,  that  the 
common  ancestor  was  remote,  and  probably  Paleo- 
zoic. He  also  adheres  to  the  order,  1.  Reptiles; 
2.  Birds  ;  3.  Mammals.  (It  may  be  well  to  refer  to 
Sir  C  Lyell,  "  Principles  of  Geology,"  vol.  iii,  p.  175, 
on  the  reasons  why  bird-remains  are  sometimes  rare. ) 

In  my  passages  referring  to  geological  results,  I 
would  ask  the  reader  to  substitute  ^:)riorz7y  for  suc- 
cession. The  latter  implies  a  continuity  of  series, 
which  is  not  found  in  the  scientific  record,  since  it  is 
broken  by  the  absence  of  reference  to  the  inverte- 
brates of  the  paleozoic,  and  the  reptiles  of  the 
mesozoic  I'ocks.  W.  E.  G. 


''DAWJSr     OF      CREATION''— AN     ANSWER      TO 
MR.     GLADSTONE. 

BY   ALBEKT    REVILLE,    D.D. 

I  had  been  already  a  month  in  Italy,  and  expected 
to  remain  at  least  another  there,  and  I  was  so  absorbed 
in  my  journey,  which  was  partly  for  pleasure,  partly 
for  instruction,  through  that  beautiful  country,  that 
I  gave  absolutely  no  thought  to  politics  or  theology, 
except  to  the  very  special  subject  which  had  drawn 
me  to  Ravenna  and  Rome.  Had  there  been  elections 
in  France  which  might  have  thrown  my  country  into 
Parliamentary  confusion  %  Were  other  elections  im- 
pending in  England  menacing  a  people  to  whom  I 
am  much  attached,  with  a  similar  fate  ?  Did  the  Bul- 
garian question  threaten  Europe  with  a  terrible 
storm  ?  I  confess,  to  my  shame,  that  all  these  ques- 
tions had  become  as  foreign  to  my  thoughts  as  the 
conflicts  of  Peru  and  Chili,  or  the  question  of  the 
prolongation  of  the  mandates  of  the  Hungai'ian  dep- 
uties. I  lived  wholly  in  jDagan  and  Chi-istian  antiq- 
uity. My  time  also  was  limited  and  barely  sufficient 
for  the  task  I  had  undertaken.  I  only  remember 
that  one  day  at  table  d'hote  I  took  somewhat  warmly 
the  side  of  Mr.  Gladstone — as  far  as  it  was  proper 
for  a  stranger  discussing  the  affairs  of  a  country  not 
his  own  to  do  so — against  an  oldEnghsh  lady  who  was 
vehemently  denouncmg  the  patriarch  of  English  Lib- 
eralism. For  with  all  due  reserve  on  the  points  on 
which  the  English  alone  are  comj)etent  to  speak,  Mr. 


108  ANSWER    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE. 

Gladstone  is,  to  us  who  hold  oiu'selves  Continental 
Liberals,  one  of  the  glories,  one  of  the  great  moral 
forces,  of  Eui'opean  Liberalism.  I  am  bound,  how- 
ever, to  add  that  my  defense  of  him  was  entii*ely 
restricted  to  the  field  of  politics. 

There  seemed,  therefore,  a  certain  irony  of  fate  to 
the  writer  of  these  lines  when,  a  few  days  after  this 
episode,  at  the  same  table  (Thote,  an  Italian  count, 
who,  unlike  myself,  was  hving  wholly  in  the  contem- 
porary world,  suddenly  said  to  me,  "You  are  M.  Re- 
ville,  are  you  not — Professor  of  the  College  de 
France  ?  "  "  Yes."  "  Well,  it  seems  that  Mr.  Glad- 
stone has  been  attacking  you  sharply  in  an  English 
review."  "  Impossible  !  "  I  exclaimed.  "  Yes,  the 
Italie  (an  Itahan  newspaper  published  in  French) 
says  so,  and  I  bring  you  the  number." 

This  incident  brought  me  a  great  increase  of  atten- 
tion and  coui-tesy  in  my  hotel,  where  I  had  hitherto 
only  been  No.  17  or  19.  I  heai'd,  or  I  thought  I 
heard,  that  they  were  saying  behind  me,  "  That  is 
the  gentleman  whom  Mr.  Gladstone  has  attacked  in 
an  English  review."  I  had  become  a  personage. 
The  hotel-keeper  and  the  waiters  became  more  defer- 
ential, and  I  soon  saw  that  it  was  beyond  all  doubt 
an  honor  and  an  advantage  to  be  attacked  by  Mr. 
Gladstone. 

Honors,  however,  have  their  drawbacks,  and  I  think 
I  perceived  it  when  I  paid  my  bill.  The  newspaper 
which  had  been  shown  me  gave  an  account,  after  its 
fashion,  of  the  attack  of  which  I  had  been  the  object, 
but  it  threw  very  little  hght  on  the  points  of  contro- 
versy, and  I  was  not  able  to  procure  the  number  of 
the  Nineteenth  Genturij.  It  was  no  matter  of  indif- 
ference to  me  to  know  that  I  had  been  censured  by 


ANSWER    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE.  109 

the  ex-premier  of  the  United  Kingdom,  for  whose 
chai'acter  and  superior  talents  I  had  long  felt  a  sin- 
cere admu'ation.  But  age  quad  agis.  I  had  come 
to  Italy  for  a  special  object.  I  could  not  deviate 
from  it  even  for  an  empire,  and  when  the  first  mo- 
ment of  sui-prise  and  emotion  was  over  I  said  to  my- 
self, like  a  merchant  on  his  holiday,  "  Business 
to-morrow!     We  will  see  to  this  in  Paris." 

At  last,  thanks  to  the  obhging  intervention  of  some 
friends  in  England,  and  especially  to  the  kind  editor 
of  the  Nineteenth  Century,  I  am  in  a  j)osition  not 
only  to  make  myself  acquainted  with  the  article  about 
myself,  but  also  to  submit  to  the  Enghsh  pubhc,  and, 
with  every  respect,  to  Mr.  Gladstone  himself,  some 
reflections  on  the  jDoints  on  which,  in  language  at 
once  indulgent  and  severe,  he  has  done  me  the  honor 
of  attacking  me. 

These  remarks  will  serve  to  explain  why  I  am  so 
late  in  replying  to  the  objections  of  my  illustrious 
assailant.  The  delay,  however,  has  had  this  advan- 
tage, that  I  have  found  my  -^ork  half  done,  and  by 
abler  hands  than  mine.  M.  Max  Miiller,  in  an  ai'ticle 
entitled,  "  Solar  Myths,"  has  defended  with  his  usual 
talent  the  theory  which  gives  a  naturalistic  interpre- 
tation to  the  greater  part  of  the  myths  that  have  come 
down  to  us  from  antiquity,  or  that  can  be  even  now 
collected  in  uncivilized  nations.  Mr.  Huxley  has 
demonstrated,  with  his  accustomed  vigor  and  with 
his  indisputable  competence,  that  IVIi-.  Gladstone 
labors  under  illusions  about  the  harmony  which  he 
supposes  himself  to  have  established  between  the  Bib- 
lical account  of  the  creation  and  the  conclusions  of 
modern  science.  I  can  only  express  to  these  two  em- 
inent men  my  gratitude  for  then:  good  opinion  of  my 


110  ANSWER    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE. 

humble  person,  and  assure  Mr.  Huxley  in  particular 
that,  so  far  from  resenting  it,  I  am  hapj^y  and  proud 
that  a  man  of  his  caliber  should  have  so  warmly  taken 
my  part,  or,  to  speak  more  acciu'ately,  should  have 
taken  my  writings  as  an  occasion  for  defending  what 
for  him  as  for  me  is  the  cause  of  scientific  truth. 

I  now  come  to  the  jjoints  of  dispute.  Mr.  Glad- 
stone, with  a  coui'tesy  for  which  I  must  thank  him, 
accuses  my  "  Prolegomena "  of  being  rather  Epile- 
gomena,  because,  as  he  says,  I  have  in  the  first  place, 
without  any  preliminary  demonstration,  eliminated 
from  the  field  of  the  scientific  history  of  religions  all 
theories  which  stai't  from  the  supposition  of  a  super- 
natural revelation  granted  to  primitive  humanity.  I 
have  put,  he  maintains,  in  the  "j^reface  "  of  the  "His- 
tory of  Religions  "  what  ought  logically  only  to  come 
at  the  end,  if  it  comes  at  all. 

I  will  venture  respectfully  to  observe  that  prefaces 
are  usually  composed  by  authors  when  their  books 
are  completed,  and  that  they  contain  directly  or  indi- 
rectly their  conclusions ;  at  all  events  they  fore- 
shadow them.  I  did  not  begin  a  history  of  religions 
without  having  studied  the  subject  as  a  whole.  More- 
over, the  natural  end  of  Prolegomena  is  to  expound, 
and  if  necessary  to  demonstrate,  the  method  which  it 
is  proposed  to  follow  in  the  works  to  which  they  are 
prefixed.  Mr.  Gladstone  is  too  clear-sighted  not  to 
landerstand  at  once  that  it  makes  an  essential  differ- 
ence in  the  manner  in  which  the  history  of  religions 
must  be  treated  whether  the  writer  starts  from  the 
idea  of  a  primitive  revelation  made  to  the  human  race, 
or  whether  he  rejects  this  hypothesis  as  unproved  or 
anti-scientific.  In  the  first  case,  this  history  is  the 
history  of  a  prolonged  decadence.     In  the  second,  it 


ANSWER    TO    Jm.    GLADSTONE.  Ill 

is  the  history  of  a  progi'essive  evolution.  I  was  there- 
fore forced,  by  the  very  natui-e  of  things,  to  state 
which  side  I  took  on  this  grave  question,  since  all 
that  followed  depended  upon  it.  If  IVIr.  Gladstone 
himself  undertook  a  general  history  of  rehgion,  I 
would  defy  him  to  escajDe  from  this  necessity. 

My  honored  critic  in  the  next  place  complains  that 
I  have  chosen  him,  rather  than  many  others,  as  the 
representative  of  the  poiat  of  view  favorable  to  the 
idea  of  a  primitive  revelation  founded  on  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Bible,  whereas  I  ought  rather  to  have 
referred  to  specialists,  such  as  Dr.  Reusch,  who  have 
developed  this  theory  ex  professo.  IVIi-.  Gladstone 
acknowledges  that  he  would  not  now  formulate  his 
views  as  "  crudely "  as  formerly  on  this  question, 
which  seemed  then  more  simple  than  in  these  later 
times;  that  to  presuppose  the  supernatural  in  such 
matters  is  to  deviate  from  the  law  of  scientific 
method ;  that  he  was  esj)ecially  absorbed  with  the 
luxui-iant  beauties  of  the  Homeric  poetry,  and  that 
he  only  entered  indirectly  into  the  theological  bear- 
ings of  his  researches.  He  maintains  only  that  there 
are  evident  traces  in  the  poems  of  Homer  of  a  histor- 
ical connection  with  the  traditions  of  the  Hebrews, 
and  especially  with  the  book  of  Genesis.  As  for  the 
precise  form  in  which  he  expressed  his  views  on  this 
question,  he  insists  on  it  so  little  that  he  has  not 
wished  to  republish  the  book  which  contains  them, 
and  it  has  now  become  very  rare.  In  fine,  he  refuses 
to  admit  the  too  dogmatic  form  given  by  me  to  that 
primitive  orthodoxy  which  was  revealed  to  the  first 
man.  It  consisted  at  most  "  of  rudimentary  indica- 
tions of  what  are  now  developed  and  established 
truths." 


112  ANSWEK    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE. 

1  can  only  bow  before  these  attenuations,  intro- 
duced by  the  author  himself  into  a  theory  which  had 
ai^peared  to  me,  and  to  others  also,  to  have  assumed 
a  much  more  definite  and  angular  form.  If  I  se- 
lected Ml'.  Gladstone  rather  than  others  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  a  pomt  of  view  which  is  not  mine,  I  did 
so  on  account  of  his  eminence.  His  name  has  often 
been  put  forward  in  support  of  the  theory  which  I 
considered  myself  obliged  to  attack.  Being  called 
upon  by  the  position  I  hold  to  endeavor  to  make  the 
educated  public  of  my  country  familiar  with  an  order 
of  studies  and  controversies  as  yet  very  httle  culti- 
vated in  France,  it  was  my  duty  to  consider  carefully 
the  antagonists  who  might  be  oj^posed  to  me.  The 
name  of  Dr.  Reusch  would  have  conveyed  nothing  to 
my  audience  or  to  my  readers.  The  name  of  Mr. 
Gladstone  shone  with  a  very  different  splendor.  I 
did  not  know,  and  was  not  bound  to  know — especially 
when  I  saw  so  eminent  an  Englishman  as  Sir  G.  Cox 
forming  the  same  estimate  as  myself  of  Mr.  Glad- 
stone's views — that  Mr.  Gladstone  had  somewhat  re- 
ceded from  the  "  crudity  "  of  his  early  affirmations. 
I  note  with  great  satisfaction  his  corrections.  I  see 
in  them  a  sign  that  his  views  are  not  as  far  as  they 
were  from  mine,  and  I  shall  certainly  mention  in  a 
new  edition  the  limitations  which  Mr.  Gladstone  has 
himself  thought  fit  to  place  upon  his  earlier  ideas 
about  the  religious  origins  of  humanity. 

My  illustrious  adversary  next  j)asses  from  the  de- 
fensive to  the  offensive,  and  reproaches  me  fii'st  of  all 
for  my  manner  of  looking  on  the  book  of  Genesis, 
and  in  the  second  j)lace  for  my  errors  about  the 
mythology  of  Homer. 

On  the  second  point  I  must   decline  at   present  to 


ANSWER    TO    ME.    GLADSTONE.  113 

enter  into  a  prolonged  controversy.  Time,  and,  to  a 
certain  jDoint,  courage,  fails  me.  In  Homeric  litera- 
ture Mr.  Gladstone  is  a  specialist  who  might  well 
intimidate  greater  scholars  than  myself.  This  does 
not,  however,  prevent  me  from  thinking  that  when 
he  sees  a  historical  relation  between  the  accoiints  in 
Genesis  and  the  traditions  embalmed  in  the  Homeric 
poems  he  is  looking  through  deceptive  glasses  which 
unconsciously  impaii"  the  clearness  of  his  sight.  In 
oui'  age  he  is  about  the  only'eminent  scholar  who  has 
perceived  this  family  resemblance.  This  is  not  a 
reason  for  asserting  that  it  does  not  exist,  but  it  is  a 
reason  for  distrusting  it,  and  I  own  that,  for  my  part, 
I  find  it  impossible  to  establish  it.  Piu'ely  external 
coincidences,  analogies  of  detail,  prove  nothing  in 
such  a  matter.  The  general  history  of  religious  be- 
liefs and  practices  shows  that  very  curious  ideas  and 
customs,  entirely  unconnected  with  those  that  now 
occupy  us,  have  existed  among  very  different  and  very 
distant  nations,  although  it  is  not  possible  reasonably 
to  suppose  that  they  were  communicated.  In  such 
cases  it  is  necessary  simj)ly  to  investigate  the  psycho- 
logical jjoint  of  departiu'e  of  these  ideas  and  customs, 
and  if  this  can  be  discovered,  the  conclusion  must  be 
di'awn  that  the  essential  unity  of  the  human  mind 
causes  it  often,  when  stp,rting  from  the  same  institu- 
tion or  principle,  to  arrive  in  many  different  regions 
at  consequences,  applications,  and  analogies  of  behef 
which  are  truly  astonishing  both  from  their  strange- 
ness and  from  theii-  resemblances.  The  Incas  who 
ruled  over  ancient  Peru  had  certainly  never  read 
Machiavel,  but  those  who  study  their  history  must 
admh'e  the  consummate  art  with  which  they  knew  how 
to  govern  theii'  vast  empii'e,  regulating  then"  conduct 


114  ANSWER    TO    MK.    GLADSTONE. 

by  maxims  which  might  seem  borrowed  from  the 
great  Florentine  theorist.  I  must  suspect  that  what 
Mr.  Gladstone  has  taken  for  signs  of  a  "historical 
relationshij) "  between  the  Homeric  poems  and  Gen- 
esis are  merely  superficial  analogies,  explained  by  the 
very  nature  of  the  human  mind  when  brought  face  to 
face  with  the  same  problems,  and  implying  none  of 
those  consequences  which  the  eminent  statesman 
wishes  to  draw  from  them. 

I  shall  push  my  boldn'ess  one  step  further.  Mr. 
Gladstone  acknowledges  himself,  with  the  most 
engaging  modesty,  that  "  of  any  other  system  than 
the  Olympian  it  would  be  presumption  in  him  to 
speak,  as  he  has,  beyond  this  limit,  none  but  the  most 
vague  and  superficial  knowledge."  Let  me  regret 
deeply  this  gap  in  the  learning  of  so  distinguished  a 
Hellenist.  If  there  be  any  department  of  knowledge 
in  which  a  comparison  of  analogies  and  coiTespond- 
ences  is  especially  instructive,  it  is  undoubtedly  the 
history  of  religions.  Each  part  of  it  throws  light 
upon  the  others,  and  all  who  have  devoted  themselves 
to  it  will,  I  am  sure,  agree  with  me,  that  at  every 
step  some  problem  arises  which  appears  inexplicable 
as  long  as  we  look  at  it  only  in  one  local  religion,  but 
finds  an  easy  and  immediate  solution  by  reference  to 
some  other  religion.  M.  Max  Mtiller  and  the  "  In- 
dianists  "  of  his  school  have  supplied  us  by  this  com- 
parative method  with  very  plausible  explanations  of 
many  exceedingly  obscure  points  in  Greek  mythology 
which  could  never  have  been  elucidated  if  we  had 
confined  ourselves  to  Greece  alone.  Who  could  have 
otherwise  amved  at  the  explanation  of  the  love  of 
Apollo  for  Daphne,  and  of  the  transformation  of  the 
young  nymph  into  a  laurel?     By  what   other  way 


ANSWEK    TO    MK.    GLADSTONE.  115 

could  we  have  traced  to  its  origin  the  story  of  Pro- 
metheus ?  And  to  what  error,  to  what  impotence,  are 
not  those  now  condemned  who  attemj^t  to  explain 
the  Olympian  mythology  by  itself  alone,  without  ever 
comparing  it  with  the  mythologies  that  are  its 
sisters  ? 

Let  me  add,  however,  that,  while  speaking  in  this 
way,  I  am  one  of  those  who  are  inclined  to  think  that 
in  these  later  years  some  injustice  has  been  done  to 
the  Greek  mythology  and  to  its  originality  by  resolv- 
ing it,  so  to  speak,  into  a  multitude  of  extraneous 
elements  coming  from  al]  quarters.  I  may  perhaps 
give  some  small  pleasure  to  Mi*.  Gladstone  by  in- 
forming him  that  I  on  the  whole  share  his  view  about 
Heracles,  whom  I  do  not  at  all  identify  with  the  Phoe- 
nician Melkart.  Both,  I  am  persuaded,  are  solar 
divinities.  The  myths  concerning  Melkart,  or  forged 
in  honor  of  that  itinerant  divinity,  have  largely 
entered  into  the  developed  legend  of  Heracles. 
Nevertheless,  I  think  with  Buttman,  Otfried  Mtiller, 
and  Schmidt,  that  Heracles  is  primitively  a  concep- 
tion purely  and  authentically  Greek.  Not  only  are 
the  characters  of  the  two  divinities  very  different,  it 
is  also  inadmissible  that  an  exotic  god  should  have 
held  so  considerable  a  place  in  the  history  of  primi- 
tive Greece. 

I  acknowledge  moreover  that  the  place  and  the 
part  assigned  to  Heracles  in  the  Homeric  poems  have 
something  in  them  difficult  to  explain.  He  is  far 
from  being  represented  there  as  a  hero  without 
reproach.  He  appears  to  be  rather  imposed  on  the 
poet  by  a  commanding  tradition  than  hked  by  him. 
I  will  add— what  perhaps  Mr.  Gladstone  will  think 
very  rash— that  being  but  little   convinced   of   the 


116  ANSWER    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE. 

unity  of  the  Homeric  poems,  I  regard  as  a  not  very- 
skilful  interpolation  of  a  harmonist  the  passage  of  the 
Odyssey,  xi,  601-604,  where  the  received  text  dis- 
tinguishes the  Heracles  admitted  into  the  divine 
abode  from  the  Heracles  whom  Ulysses  perceives 
among  the  mournful  shades  that  inhabit  the  kingdom 
of  Hades.  I  have  myself  a  little  explanation  of  this 
apparent  anomaly,  but  I  hai'dly  ventui'e  to  propose  it 
to  the  learned  commentator  of  Homer.  I  think  that 
Heracles  was  long  a  popular  divinity  in  the  lower 
ranks  of  the  Greek,  population,  still  more  legendary 
and  especially  less  refined  than  his  rival,  the  beautiful 
Phoebus  Apollo,  even  though  both  may  have  sprung 
from  the  same  root.  But  Phoebus  Apollo  was  the 
sun-god  preferred  by  the  upper  classes,  by  the  nobles, 
the  princes,  and  the  kings.  He  was  the  aristocratic 
sun,  and  the  poetry  of  the  aedes,  a  poetry  in  some 
sort  feudal,  was  from  the  beginning  more  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  poet-and-musician-god,  the  sun-god  of 
the  upper  classes,  than  with  the  Gargantua  of  the 
populace.  Hence  the  depreciation  of  the  latter  and 
the  kind  of  satisfaction  with  which  his  brutality,  his 
arrogance,  even  his  impiety  and  his  crimes,  are 
recounted.  At  a  later  period  the  joopular  legend 
obliged  every  one  to  respect  its  favorite  hero,  and, 
without  effacing  all  his  faults,  impressed  upon  him 
definitively  in  the  mythology  the  characters  of  the 
pacificator,  the  liberator,  and  the  "  Good  Giant," 
which  Mr.  Gladstone,  imprisoned  in  his  "  Homer," 
accuses  me  with  some  ii'ony  of  having  Hghtly 
attributed  to  a  god  who  by  no  means  deserved  them. 
I  do  not  know  whether  this  explanation,  which  I 
could  develoj)  and  support  with  some  proofs,  will  find 


ANSWER    TO    ME.    GLADSTONE.  117 

any  favor  with  my  censor,  and  I  merely  submit  it  to 
him  with  deference. 

Another  indication  of  the  limitation  which  the  too 
exclusive  study  of  a  single  author  may  impose  on  the 
most  clear-sighted  mind  may  be  found  in  a  little 
attack  which  Mr.  Gladstone  makes  on  me  about 
Ixion  and  his  burning  wheel.  It  is  true  that  a  pas- 
sage of  Homer  which  speaks  of  Zeus  as  having  loved 
the  wife  of  Ixion  does  not  agree  with  the  myth  ordi- 
narily received  and  related  at  length  by  Pindar 
(Pyth.  ii),  according  to  w^hich  it  was  Ixion  who  pur- 
sued with  his  criminal  addresses  the  spouse  of  Zeus. 
According  to  Pindar,  Ixion's  wheel  was  not  "burning," 
but  "  winged."  This  contradiction  between  Homer 
and  Pindar,  and  the  difference  between  Pindar  and 
the  later  mythology,  only  prove  that  originally  many 
diverging  mythical  nations  connected  themselves  with 
the  name  of  Ixion,  "  the  man  on  the  wheel,"  the  "re- 
volving one,"  but  the  narrative  of  Pindar,  an  excellent 
witness  to  the  myths  which  were  then  sung  before 
assembled  Greece,  proves  that  this  was  the  conse- 
crated form  which  at  that  time  dominated  over  all 
others.  Whether  the  wheel  was  "biu'ning"  or 
simply  "  winged  "  is  of  no  consequence.  This  does 
not  deprive  the  student  of  myths  of  the  right  of 
bringing  together  all  the  mythic  wheels,  which,  from 
India  to  the  Poitevins  of  France,  have  in  so  many 
countries  been  employed  to  represent  the  sun.  The 
sun  was  not  only  or  always  conceived  as  a  hajDpy  and 
benevolent  being.  Phoebus  Apollo  himself  is  dis- 
tinguished by  something  else  than  goodness  and 
constant  happiness,  and  the  notion  of  the  sun  as  an 
enslaved  being,  condemned  to  a  weary  task,  forced  to 
roll  on  forever,  and  therefore  wretched,  guilty  and 


118  ANSWEE    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE. 

punished,  may  be  easily  found  elsewhere  as  well  as  in 
the  myth  of  Ixion. 

May  I  now  be  allowed  to  express  the  surprise 
which  I  felt  in  reading  in  Mr.  Gladstone's  article  that 
the  Poseidon  of  Homer,  the  god  in  whom  the  Latins 
thought  they  recognized  their  Neptune,  "is  not  the 
god  of  the  liquid  element  at  all  ?  "  This  statement 
ajDj^eared  to  me  so  contrary  to  evidence  that  I  read  it 
twice  to  assru'e  myself  that  I  was  not  mistaken.  I 
willingly  admit  that  the  gods  of  Homer,  at  least  the 
Olympian  or  superior  gods,  must  no  longer  be  con- 
founded materially  with  the  physical  elements,  of 
which  they  were  originally  the  simjDle  personifications. 
They  are  distingviished — not  absolutely  separated — 
from  them.  They  are  above  all  humanized.  As  the 
savage  believes  that  the  soul  of  a  man  may  quit  his 
body  and  walk  abroad  according  to  its  caprices,  so 
the  Greek  of  the  Homeric  times  distinguished  the 
divine  person  from  the  physical  elements  that  imder- 
lay  it.  He  made  of  it  a  being  superior  .to,  but  at  the 
same  time  resembling,  man;  and  he  attributed  to 
this  being  all  the  liberty  of  will,  of  movement,  and  of 
action  that  could  be  supposed  to  exist  in  a  man  of 
gigantic  size,  force,  and  intelHgence.  Side  by  side 
with  these  gods  now  emanci^Dated  from  their  material 
prison,  the  Greek  mythology,  with  the  easy  syncretism 
which  belongs  to  polytheistic  systems,  kept  up  the 
memory  of  other  gods  which  were  not  in  reahty 
older,  but  which  corresponded  to  older  notions: 
Hehos  by  the  side  of  Apollo,  Selene  by  the  side  of 
Artemis,  Okeanos  and  Nereus  by  the  side  of  Posei- 
don, etc.  But  to  pretend  that  this  latter  is  not 
essentially  a  sea-god,  in  Homer  as  everywhere  else — 
an  ancient  personification  of  the  liquid  element — ^he 


ANSWER    TO   MR.    GLADSTONE.  119 

and  his  spouse  Amphitrite,  who  surrounds  the  earth 
and  beats  it  with  her  incessant  waves — is  to  take  up 
a  position  in  du'ect  contradiction  to  the  beautiful  de- 
scription of  the  "Iliad"  (lib.  xiii,  10  sq.),  while 
through  the  "  Odyssey  "  the  hero  is  compelled  con- 
tinually to  suffer  upon  the  sea  the  effects  of  the  anger 
of  the  god  of  the  seas.  Does  not  Poseidon  himself 
declare  in  the  '"  Iliad "  that  in  the  division  of  the 
world  between  himself  and  his  two  brothers  he 
received  for  his  lot  "  the  foaming  sea  "  (xv,  190)? 

What  does  it  signify  that  he  has  been  in  some 
places  adored  as  the  supreme  God  1 — this  is  tx'ue  of 
almost  all  the  gods  of  polytheism  ;  or  that  his  wor- 
ship may  be  found  in  the  midst  of  a  continent '? — the 
fountains  of  water,  the  soui-ces  of  the  rivers,  were 
there  attributed  to  him  ;  or  that  he  loved  to  visit  the 
Ethiopians? — this  was  a  very  usual  taste  among  the 
Greek  gods;  Mr.  Gladstone  knows  the  reason  as 
well  as  I  do. 

I  shall  not  dilate  upon  the  objections  he  advances 
on  the  subject  of  Hera,  the  august  spouse  of  Zeus, 
who  seems  to  me  to  have  personified  the  sky  in  its 
inconstant  aspect,  mobile,  easily  disturbed,  as  if  she 
represented  the  variable  and  lower  element,  while 
Zeus,  her  husband,  is  rather  the  unchanging  sky,  in 
the  majestic  serenity  of  its  unalterable  blue.  When 
they  are  united  and  agreed,  nothing  can  equal  the 
smiling  beauty  of  Nature.  When  they  are  divided 
and  disputing,  all  goes  wrong.  Moreover,  in  the 
"  lUad,"  Hera  shares,  though  in  a  lower  measure,  the 
powers  of  Zeus.  She  also  scolds  from  the  celestial 
heights,  and  can,  in  concert  with  Boreas,  let  loose  the 
storms  (II.  xi,  42;  xv,  26).  I  know  that  the  question 
of  her  physical  origin  is  less  simple  than  that  of  most 


120  ANSWEB    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE. 

of  the  Olympians.  I  myself  hesitated  long  about 
whether  she  ought  to  be  placed  in  the  category  of 
the  earth  goddesses  like  Gaia,  Rhea,  Cybele,  Themis, 
Danae,  Leto,  Semele,  and  probably  Dione  of  Dodona. 
Analogy  appeared  to  lead  to  this  conclusion.  Never- 
theless, on  the  whole,  Hera  seems  to  me  to  want  the 
characteristics  which  usually  distinguish  the  earth 
goddesses.  She  has  neither  their  fixity — for  la 
donna  ^  mobile — nor  theu'  attributes  of  divination. 
Her  typical  bird,  the  peacock,  with  its  expanding  tail, 
seems  rather  to  suggest  the  starry  sky  than  the  earth. 
Her  position  as  the  recognized  spouse  of  the  god  of 
the  heavens,  distinct  from  the  earth  goddesses,  who 
originally  held  the  first  rank  in  the  great  number  of 
local  mythologies  (which,  it  may  be  said  in  passing, 
contributed  greatly  to  tarnish  the  conjugal  reputation 
of  Zeus),  seems  to  me  to  be  traceable  to  a  time, 
already  past  in  the  Homeric  age,  when  the  division  of 
the  world  into  three  distinct  kingdoms,  each  with  its 
supreme  god,  was  generally  recognized  in  the  Greek 
world.  From  that  period  it  must  have  appeared  nat- 
ural that  the  titular  spouse  of  the  supreme  celestial 
god  should  have  been  herself  celestial,  and  not  a  per- 
sonification of  the  marine  element  or  of  the  earth, 
which  had  in  Hades  its  supreme  god  in  Pluto,  and  its 
goddess  in  Demeter  or  Persephone,  jus't  as  the  sea- 
god  Poseidon  had  as  his  "  parhedra"  Amphitrite,  the 
Nereid.  But  I  repeat  it,  this  question  of  Hera  is  one 
of  the  most  obscui'e  ia  Greek  mythology ;  I  do  not 
pretend  to  discuss  or  to  resolve  it  ia  my  "  Prolegom- 
ena,'' where  I  only  alluded  to  it  in  passing,  nor  can 
I  attempt  to  treat  it  fully  in  a  mere  controversial 
article.  I  only  wish  to  show  my  eminent  critic  that 
it  has  not  been  with  a  superficial  presumption  that  I 


ANSWER   TO   MR.    GLADSTONE.  121 

allotted  to  Hera  the  mythological  title  of  "Queen  of 
the  Shining  Heaven  " — I  am  persuaded  that  she  has 
a  right  to  it. 

In  the  next  place,  I  must  protest  against  the  term 
"  solar  theory,"  which  Mi*.  Gladstone  applies  to  my 
general  views  about  mythology.  It  is  the  "  natm-al- 
istic  theory"  that  I  have  suj^ported — that  is,  the  theory 
which  explains  the  genesis  of  mythologies  by  the 
personification  and  dramatization  of  natui'al  phenom- 
ena. Undoubtedly  that  theory  when  well  understood 
supposes  the  action  of  the  religious  sentiment  inherent 
in  human  natui'e.  There  is  nothing  in  it  materiahstic 
or  irreligious.  Undoubtedly,  also,  the  sim  and  the 
phenomena  connected  with  it,  hold  so  prominent  a 
place  that  it  is  natural  to  expect  that  social  myths 
will  be  the  most  conspicuous  by  their  number,  theu- 
attraction,  and  their  variety.  But  the  sun  is  still 
only  a  part  of  a  whole  which  our  languages  and  our 
modern  minds  designate  by  the  word  nature.  Side 
by  side  with  the  solar  myths,  there  are  myths  which 
are  purely  celestial,  marine,  and  tellurian.  It  is 
neither  accurate  nor  just,  systematically  to  describe 
the  whole  by  one  of  its  parts.  I  am  astonished  that 
the  sagacity  of  Mr.  Gladstone  has  not  long  since  led 
him  to  favor  an  explanation  which  has  found  a  brill- 
iant confii'mation  in  the  relations  discovered  between 
the  Greek  mythology  and  the  mythologies  of  India 
and  the  other  Ai'yan  regions,  and  which  Egypt, 
America,  Oceanica,  Africa,  even  China,  not  to  speak 
of  the  Semitic  races,  have,  I  will  venture  to  say, 
raised  to  the  position  of  demonstrated  truth.  But, 
to  judge  the  force  of  this  demonstration,  a  scholar 
must  not  confine  himself  to  the  Homeric  poetry. 

I  shall  now  pass  to  the  other  pai't  of  Mr.  Glad- 


122  ANSWER    TO   MR.    GLADSTONE. 

stone's  attack,  which  relates  to  the  eiTors  I  am  sup- 
posed to  have  committed  in  denying  that  the  Bibhcal 
account  of  the  creation  agrees  with  the  results  of 
modern  natural  science.  This,  if  I  mistake  not,  is  the 
part  which  will  have  most  interested  the  majority  of 
his  readers. 

I  have  said  in  my  "  Prolegomena,"  while  rendering 
full  homage  to  the  beauty  and  religious  pui'ity  of  the 
Bibhcal  account  of  the  creation,  that  it  contains 
assertions  contradicted  by  modern  science.  Thus 
the  firmament  destined  to  separate  the  waters  below 
from  those  above  is  represented  as  a  solid  vault ;  the 
stars  have  been  created  after  the  earth,  the  periods  of 
creation  or  formation  are  single  days.  I  have  also, 
it  appears,  not  recognized  the  wonderfully  scientific 
order  of  the  successive  appearance  of  the  creatures 
that  inhabit  the  water,  the  au",  and  the  eai'th,  until  at 
last  man  appears  to  crown  and  complete  the  work  of 
creation.  These  are  my  principal  heresies,  in  addi- 
tion to  which  I  am  accused  of  having  put  forward 
some  bad-sounding  projDOsitions  about  the  moral 
state  of  the  first  couple,  as  it  appears  in  the  account 
of  the  fall  in  Eden,  and  about  the  meaning  of  the 
plui-al  which  the  creator  emjDloys  in  speaking  of  him- 
self. 

I  must  allow  myself  to  remind  my  readers  that  my 
object  in  treating  these  questions  was  neither  to  at- 
tack nor  to  defend  the  sacred  writings.  It  was  solely 
to  show,  by  a  succinct  analysis  of  then."  chief  contents, 
that  the  partisans  of  a  primitive  doctrinal  revelation 
are  mistaken  in  supposing  that  the  Bible  itself  sup- 
ports then-  view. 

For  the  rest,  even  after  the  ingenious  pleadings  of 
jVIr.  Gladstone,  I  maintain  my  assertions. 


ANSWER    TO    ME.    GLADSTONE.  123 

Mr.  Huxley  has  made  it  unnecessary  for  me  to 
dwell  upon  the  j)retended  conformity  of  the  success- 
ive appearances  of  organized  beings  in  Genesis  with 
the  results  that  have  been  established  by  comtem- 
porary  geology.  It  is  not  true  that  the  vegetable, 
aquatic,  flying,  quadruped,  and  reptile  species  suc- 
ceeded each  other  in  their  totality  in  the  order 
specified  by  the  canonic  'writer.  Mr.  Gladstone 
seems  to  have  lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  at  verses  11 
and  12  the  whole  vegetable  world  in  all  its  depart- 
ments, as  the  author  of  the  narrative  knew  it,  had 
made  its  complete  appearance  at  the  command  of 
God.  Consequently,  the  objection  drawn  from  the 
absence  of  the  solar  light  remains  in  all  its  force. 
For  it  is  not  a  diffused  light,  concentrating  itself 
gradually  round  the  sun,  that  could  have  simul- 
taneously permitted  all  the  vegetable  species  to 
develop  over  the  surface  of  the  earth.  I  know  well 
that  a  lax  interpretation  has  transformed  the  days  of 
Genesis  into  periods  of  immense  length,  in  spite  of 
the  mention  of  "  evening  "  and  "  morning  "  which 
closes  each  of  the  creative  acts.  Unfortunately,  it  is 
impossible  to  adopt  this  interj)retation.  For  it  is  on 
the  supposition  that  the  days  of  the  creation  were 
similar  to  our  own  that  the  famous  commandment  of 
the  Sabbath  is  based,  and  this  is  the  motive  assigned 
for  it  by  the  Hebrew  legislator  :  "  Thou  shalt  work 
six  days  and  do  all  thy  work,  but  the  seventh  day  is 
the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God.  Thou  shalt  do 
no  work  on  that  day  .  .  .  For  in  six  days  the 
Lord  made  the  heavens,  the  earth,  and  the  sea,  and 
all  that  is  in  them,  and  rested  the  seventh  day.'" 
Now,  if  the  days  of  the  creation  should  be  under- 
stood as  periods  of  thousands  or  millions  of  years,  I 


124  ANSWER    TO    ME.    GLADSTONE. 

beg  Mr.  Gladstone  to  explain  liow  they  can  serve  as 
an  argument  in  support  of  the  command  to  work  for 
six  days  of  our  week  and  to  rest  on  the  seventh. 

I  also  regret  to  tell  him  that  the  Hebrew  word 
ordinarily  translated  in  our  versions  by  the  word 
firmament,  while  it  expresses  the  idea  of  an  expan- 
sion, of  something  that  is  stretched  out,  expresses 
also  that  of  something  solid.  This  is  why  the  firma- 
ment supj)orts  the  waters  that  are  above  it,  and 
separates  them  according  to  the  divine  will  from 
those  which  are  below  it  (v.  6,  7).  Otherwise  the 
j)assage  would  be  incomprehensible.  This  idea  of  a 
solid  sky  is  general  throughout  antiquity,  and  the 
sacred  text,  when  it  jDroceeds  to  the  account  of  the 
deluge,  does  not  fail  to  tell  us  that  the  sluices  or 
closing  parts  of  the  heavens  were  opened,  which 
brought  about  the  junction  of  the  waters  above  the 
heavens  with  the  waters  below  the  earth,  which  rose 
from  the  springs  of  the  great  abyss,  so  that  the  earth 
was  entu'ely  covered  from  the  second  divine  work  of 
the  creation  was  for  the  time  annulled  (comp.  Gen. 
vii,  10-12 ;  i,  6-8,  and  also  in  the  same  order  of  ideas 
Ps.  cxlvhi,  4 ;  Ajdoc.  iv,  6).  All  these  ways  of  repre- 
senting things  suppose  the  solidity  of  the  firmament, 
and  the  LXX  in  translating  the  Hebrew  word  by 
ffrepeoof-ia  have  perfectly  given  its  sense.  2Tepo<i, 
in  fact,  expresses  the  idea  of  firmness  and  solidity. 

I  am  also  afraid  that  ]\Ii'.  Gladstone  attaches  a  very 
undue  and  ill-founded  importance  to  the  metaphysical 
distinction  which  he  establishes  between  the  expres- 
sions "  to  create  "  and  "  to  make,"  which  are  used 
alternately  in  the  account  in  Genesis  of  the  successive 
works  of  the  creator.  It  is  true  that  it  is  said  God 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth  (i,  1),  God  vnade 


ANSWEE    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE.  125 

the  firmament  (v.  7),  God  made  the  sun  and  the 
moon  (v.  16),  God  created  the  great  fishes  (v.  21), 
God  made  the  terrestrial  animals  (v.  25),  and  God 
created  man  (v.  27).  But  are  we  therefore  authorized 
to  think  that  the  canonical  writer  intended  to  mark 
the  enormous  difference  from  a  metaphysical  point  of 
view,  which  separates  creation — that  is,  calling  being 
into  existence  by  an  incomprehensible  act  of  divine 
power — from  the  act  of  making  ?  Hebraists  are  far 
from  certain  that  the  word  barah,  which  we  translate 
by  "  to  create,"  had  this  exclusive  and  rigorous  mean- 
ing. It  signifies,  according  to  the  dictionaries,  "  to 
form,"  "  to  fashion,"  as  well  as  "  to  create."  The 
LXX  had  no  idea  of  expressing  the  distinction  be- 
tween creating  and  making.  They  might  certainly 
have  employed  alternately  the  words  x'^^Z^i'^^  and 
TToisiv.  They  did  not  do  so,  probably  because  the 
distinction  of  meaning  escaped  then*  notice.  More- 
over, a  clear  proof  that  the  distinction  to  which  Mr. 
Gladstone  appeals  has  not  a  great  importance  is  that 
in  V.  26  God  says,  "  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image," 
and  in  v.  27  it  is  said,  "  God  created  man  in  his  im- 
age." It  is  evident  from  this  that  in  the  mind  of  the 
author  the  words  "create"  and  "make"  might  be 
used  undistinguishably,  and  that  we  moderns  are 
quite  wrong  in  trying  to  force  oui-  metaphysical  dis- 
tinctions on  old  historians  who  never  dreamed  of 
them. 

But  what  use  is  there,  it  will  be  said,  in  these 
subtle  discussions  *?  It  remains  not  the  less  certain 
that  canonical  writers  wished  to  express  the  great 
monotheistic  truth  that  God  is  the  only  and  absolute 
,  author  of  the  world  and  of  all  that  exists,  that  he  is 
the  principle  and  source  of  being,  and  this  is  all  that 


126  ANSWTEE    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE. 

it  is  necessary  from  a  religious  point  of  view  to  main- 
tain.    Be  it  so,  but  it  is  in  a  distinction,  -which  is  in 
my  eyes  an  anachronism,  that  Mr.  Gladstone  hopes 
to  find  an  answer  to  those  who  object  to  the  pre- 
tended harmony  between  Genesis  and  modern  science 
that  the  first  represents  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  as 
created  subsequently  to  the  earth,  and  intended  only 
to  throw  light  upon  it.     I  think  in  truth  that  this 
was  the  idea  of  the  sacred  writer,  and  that  every  one 
who  reads  him  without  a  j^reconceived  opinion  would 
derive  this  impression  from  his  words.     But  this  is 
not  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Gladstone.     No,  he  says,  God 
did  not  create,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word  create, 
the  celestial  bodies  on  the  foui'th  day,  when  the  earth 
already  existed,  freed  from  waters  and  covered  with 
plants ;    he  made  them,    which  is  a  very   different 
thing ;    he  assigned  them  then-  place  in  relation  to 
the  earth.     They  were,  no  doubt,  already  included  in 
the  creation  of  the  heavens  which  is  mentioned  in  the 
first  verse.     The  fourth  day  only  marks  the  moment 
of  the  final  exclusive  concentration  of  light  in  the  sun 
and  of  its  reflection  on  the  moon  and  on  the  j)lanets. 
I  must  here  stojD :  I  do  not  wish  to  prolong  this  ex- 
planation to  the  point  of  giving  it  an  apjDearance  of 
irony.     I  would  only  submit  this  question  to  any  im- 
partial reader — when  it  is  said  that  God  determined 
that  there  should  be  light-giving  bodies  in  the  firma- 
ment, to  divide  the  seasons,  and  to  shine  upon  the 
earth,  that  God  made  them,  and  that  God  ^^/acec? 
them  in  the  firmament,  is  it  conceivable  that  such 
words  were  intended  to  convey  that  these  light-bear- 
ing bodies  ah'eady  existed,  and  that  the  work  of  the 
creator  on  that  day  consisted  simj)ly  of  assigning  them 
a  place,  an  orbit,  and  a  power  of  radiation  ?  Whether 


ANSWER    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE.  127 

God  made  or  created  the  stars  on  the  foui'th  day, 
after  the  earth  and  its  vegetation,  the  difficulty 
remains  absolutely  the  same. 

Having  said  this,  I  have  now  only  to  defend  myself 
against  two  reproaches  of  a  certain  importance. 

Mr.  Gladstone  blames  me  for  having  misinterpreted 
the  passage,  "  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,"  in 
which  orthodox  Christianity  wishes  to  see  an  allusion 
to  the  Trinity.  I  have  suggested  that  this  is  either 
a  pluralis  majesticus,  or  that  this  passage  may  im- 
ply the  existence  of  celestial  beings,  the  Bene  Elohim, 
in  whose  presence  the  creator  was  displaying  his 
energies,  and  whom  he  invites  to  some  kind  of  coop- 
eration when  he  comes  to  the  last  and  the  most  per- 
fect of  his  works.  I  have  not  concealed  my  preference 
for  the  second  explanation  which  appears  to  me  sup- 
ported by  the  analogy  of  other  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament,  siich  as  Gen.  iii,  22  ;  vi,  2  ;  Job  xxxviii,  7. 
I  must  decline  absolutely  the  honor  which  Mr.  Glad- 
stone is  good  enough  to  do  me  in  representing  me  as 
opposing  proudly  and  presumptuously  my  solitary 
opinion  to  the  traditions  of  the  Christian  church. 
There  are  passages  in  the  Bible,  as,  for  example, 
Isaiah  vii,  14,  concerning  which  the  unanimity  of  tra- 
dition does  not  prevent  it  from  being  very  erroneous. 
But  as  for  the  passage  we  are  now  discussing,  I  am 
very  far  from  being  alone  in  my  opinion,  and  I  wait 
for  some  other  refutation  than  an  api^eal  to  a  tradi- 
tion of  which  those  who  alone  for  so  many  centuries 
knew  how  to  read  or  to  interpret  the  original  Hebrew 
were  profoundly  ignorant. 

In  the  last  place  Mi-.  Gladstone  is  much  sui'prised 
that,  relying  on  the  picture  which  the  author  of  the 
second  chapter  of  Genesis  traces  of  the  life  of  the  lii-st 


128  ANSWER    TO    MR.     GLADSTONE. 

human  couj)le  in  Eden,  I  say  that  he  represents  them 
as  ignorant  of  the  elementary  notions  of  morahty. 
He  admits,  indeed,  that  it  is  only  possible  to  ascribe 
to  them  "  the  morality  of  a  little  child,  the  undevel- 
oped morality  of  obedience."  This  is  already  some 
approach  to  an  agreement.  But  in  my  tui-n  I  will 
ventui-e  to  ask  him  if  he  has  duly  weighed  the  full 
significance  of  the  declaration  that  they  were  without 
the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil?  that  they  only 
acqmi'ed  this  knowledge  by  a  transgression  the  im- 
moral character  of  which  must  necessarily  have 
escaped  them  ?  I  have  not  to  justify  or  to  criticise 
the  canonical  writer.  I  confine  myself  to  registering 
his  statement.  There  are  but  these  two  alternatives. 
Either  Adam  and  Eve  before  eating  the  forbidden 
finiit  knew  that  they  were  committing,  not  a  false  cal- 
culation, not  an  act  of  imprudence,  but  a  fault  in  the 
moral  sense  of  the  word,  and  in  that  case  it  is  inad- 
missible that  they  had  no  knowledge  of  good  and  evil 
until  after  they  had  eaten  it ;  or  else  they  had,  as  the 
canonical  narrative  afiii'ms,  up  to  this  time  no  knowl- 
edge of  good  or  evil,  and  in  that  case  I  am  perfectly 
justified  in  saying  that  they  were  strangers  to  the 
most  elementary  notions  of  taorality.  And  I  see  a 
confirmation  of  this  o^Dinion  in  the  incident  related 
by  the  sacred  author  with  so  much  psychological 
truth,  according  to  which  the  sentiment  of  shame 
which  distinguishes  so  clearly  man,  the  moral  being, 
from  the  brute,  only  awoke  in  them  after  they  had 
eaten  the  forbidden  food. 

No  doubt  much  may  be  said  about  the  meaning 
or  the  possible  meanings  of  this  mythical  story. 
The  great  difficulty  in  penetrating  to  its  true  mean- 
ing comes  not  only  from  the  fact  that  a  later  theology 


ANSWER    TO    ME.    GLADSTONE.  129 

has  based  upon  its  poetry  imposing-  dogmas  of  which 
the  author  had  no  idea,  and  that  many  succeeding 
generations  have  only  looked  on  it  thi-ough  the  facti- 
tious lights  created  by  these  traditional  dogmas ;  it 
comes  also  from  the  fact  that  the  author  himself  could 
not  completely  extricate  himself  from  the  apparent 
contradiction  of  the  two  principles  to  which  he  tries 
to  do  justice.  On  the  one  side  man  has  advanced ; 
he  knows  what  he  did  not  know ;  he  has  become  a 
moral  being ;  the  serpent  has  not  lied ;  his  eyes  have 
been  opened.  On  the  other  side  the  progress  seems 
to  have  been  accompHshed  against  God  and  in  spite 
of  God.  "We  find  elsewhere  this  double  sentiment  of 
a  timid  piety,  which,  while  recognizing  the  progress 
of  man  as  good  in  itself,  finds  it  difficult  to  imagine 
that  it  does  not  constitute  an  insolent,  impious, 
guilty  revolt  against  the  sovereign  God.  Is  not  this 
the  point  of  view  of  old  -^schylus  in  the  drama  of 
"  Prometheus  ?  "  But  it  is  not  now  oiu*  business  to 
resolve  the  antinomies  involved  in  the  narratives  we 
are  trying  to  interpret.  It  is  sufficient  to  interpret 
them  exactly.  How  many  of  the  most  eminent  minds 
find  it  difficult  to  read  them  without  infusing  into 
them  ideas  or  points  of  view  which  distort  then'  mean- 
ing !  The  same  author  in  connecting  with  a  divine 
malediction  provoked  by  the  first  transgression  cer- 
tain collective  evils  which  afflict  the  man,  the  woman, 
and  the  serpent,  says  that  God  pronounced  that 
there  should  be  henceforth  enmity  between  the  pos- 
terity of  the  serpent  and  the  posterity  of  the  woman, 
that  the  posterity  of  the  woman  should  attack  the 
serpent  on  the  head  (or  bruise  its  head),  and  that  the 
serpent  or  its  posterity  should  attack  on  the  heel  the 
posterity  of  the  woman.     Others  besides  myself  have 


130  ANSWER    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE. 

thought  that  it  has  been  a  mistake  in  the  Christian 
chui'ch  to  see  a  prophecy  of  the  Redemption  in  this 
cui'se  w  hich  leaves  the  two  adversaries  in  a  relation 
of  mortal  enduring  hostility,  without  givmg  any 
prospect  of  its  cessation  (compai'e  Gen.  iii,  15).  But 
this  displeases  Mr.  Gladstone.  He  thinks  he  finds 
an  indication  of  the  superiority  and  final  victory  of 
man  in  the  fact  that  man  attacks  his  enemy  on  the 
head,  and  that  his  enemy  can  only  attack  him  on  the 
heel,  for  the  head  is  much  more  essential  to  life  than 
the  foot.  Good  heavens  !  If  INIr.  Gladstone  were 
unfortunate  enough  to  be  bitten  on  the  heel  by  a  ven- 
omous serpent,  would  his  lot  be  much  more  favorable 
than  that  of  the  serpent  whose  head  he  had  crushed? 
.  I  shall  not  pause  upon  a  little  cavil  w^hich  he  raises 
against  me  about  the  somewhat  strange  text  Genesis 
iv,  26,  generally  translated,  "  Then  they  began  to  in- 
voke the  name  of  Jahveh."  The  importance  of  this 
Jahvistic  text  comes  especially  from  its  contradiction 
with  the  Elohistic  text.  Exodus  vi,  2,  3,  from  which  it 
seems  to  follow  that  the  name  of  Jahveh  w^as  un- 
known to  the  patriarchs.  However  this  may  be,  and 
without  entering  into  a  discussion  which  would  be 
necessarily  too  long,  and  even  if  the  phi-ase  ought  to 
be  put  in  the  singular,  with  the  Samaritan  codex  and 
the  LXX,  which  the  Hebrew  text  jmts  in  the  plm-al, 
I  maintain  that  this  text  may  be  always  justly  ad- 
duced against  those  who  pretend  that  the  first  man 
received  a  doctrinal  revelation  in  the  beginninsr. 
This  is  all  that  I  attempted  to  maintain  in  my  "  Prol- 
egomena," and  I  do  not  think  that  the  arguments  of 
my  respected  critic  are  of  a  natm-e  to  weaken  the 
jjroof. 

I  am  sincerely  grateful  to  him  for  not  having  con- 


ANSWER    TO    ME.    GLADSTONE.  l31 

founded  me  with  those  who  despise  or  detest  rehgion 
itself.  Though  much  detached  from  the  dogmatic 
traditions  of  the  church,  I  am  in  truth  more  and 
more  convinced  of  the  legitimacy  of  the  religious 
principle  in  the  human  mind.  I  see  in  it  a  jDrophetie 
indication  of  the  higher  destiny  of  man  ;  and  I  must 
add  that  it  is  my  conviction  that  religion  among  civ- 
ilized men  is  for  ever  destined  to  move  in  the  same 
du'ection  which  the  gospel  gave  it  eighteen  hundred 
yeai'S  ago.  Either  man  will  cease  to  be  religious,  or 
he  will  find  himself  compelled  to  be  in  a  certain 
measui-e  Christian.  I  do  not  recognize  myself,  there- 
fore, in  the  eloquent  and  moving  j^icture  which  Mr. 
Gladstone  has  drawn  at  the  end  of  his  article  of  the 
iconoclasts  who  are  exulting  in  the  idea  that  they 
have  destroyed  one  or  other  of  the  beliefs  from  which 
so  many  generations  have  drawn  their  best  consola- 
tion and  hopes.  If  I  have  been  able  like  others  to 
greet  with  enthusiasm  the  complete  hberty  of  con- 
science and  intelligence  contained  in  j)rinciple  in  the 
gospel,  partially  restored  at  the  Reformation  and 
completely  won  in  oui'  own  day,  I  have  also  more  than 
once  known  what  it  is  to  bid  melancholy  farewell  to 
traditional  doctrines  which  had  charmed  my  childhood 
and  my  youth  with  theii*  grandevu',  their  poetry,  and 
their  mystic  beauty.  The  fruits  of  the  tree  of  knowl- 
edge are  sometimes  bitter,  and  Mr.  Gladstone  is  quite 
right  in  protesting  against  the  brutality  with  which 
the  venerable  roots  of  the  ancient  faitli  are  sometimes 
treated. 

But  allow  me  to  tell  him  that  there  is  one  thing  of 
far  higher  importance  than  the  propriety  and  the  de- 
cency which  he  demands  from  contemporary  criticism. 
It   is  that  it  should  be  inspu-ed  by  a  genuine  and 


132  ANSWER   TO   MK.    GLADSTONE. 

disinterested  love  of  truth.  I  can  well  imagine  tlaat 
the  defenders  of  exj)iring  paganism  or  the  sincere 
Eoman  Catholics  who  lived  during  the  destructive 
revolution  of  Luther,  shed  many  a  tear  over  the  kind 
of  fmy  with  which  men  were  sapping  the  very 
foundations  of  systems  which  seemed  to  them  the 
most  sacred  and  the  most  consohng  in  the 
world.  Yet  the  Christians  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, the  Protestants  of  the  sixteenth,  were  in 
the  truth;  they  were  on  the  path  that  leads  upwai'd 
to  truth.  Let  us  keep  clear  of  all  passion,  whether 
it  be  conservative  or  negative.  Passion  always 
blinds.  But  let  us  have  the  courage  to  seek  for  and 
express  the  truth,  as  it  appears  to  our  minds,  in  all 
its  simplicity  and  its  jDurity.  Do  not  let  us  be 
alarmed  by  the  torrents  swollen  with  the  autumnal 
rains,  nor  yet  with  the  frost  that  congeals  the  waters 
and  the  plants.  In  due  time  the  spring  will  come 
with  its  brightness  and  its  flowers.  The  worst  thing 
that  could  hapj)en  would  be  that  humanity  shovdd 
cease  to  discuss  those  great  problems  which  consti- 
tute at  once  its  torment,  its  nobihty,  and  its  hapjDi- 
ness.  This  danger  is  not  now  to  be  feared.  On  the 
contrary,  we  may  hoj^e  that  from  the  angry  shock  of 
opposing  religious  principles  and  ideas  a  great  syn- 
thesis will  arise  which  may  satisfy  the  wants  and 
aspirations  of  all.  We  shall  probably  not  see  it  with 
the  eyes  of  the  flesh,  but  we  may  all  contribute  to  its 
advent  by  seeking  for  truth  in  religion  as  in  all  other 
things,  laboriously,  faithfully,  and  courageously. 
Neither  the  rage  of  an  ii-religious  fanaticism,  nor  the 
sentimentality  of  an  emasculated  romanticism,  must 
guide  us  in  this  voyage  toward  the  unknown  or  the 
little  known.     The  love  of  truth  is  but  one  of  the 


""ANSWER    TO    MK.    GLADSTONE.  133 

elements  of  the  love  of  God,  since  truth  is  but  one  of 
the  aspects  of  his  supreme  perfection.  If  Chi'ist  lived 
and  spoke  in  the  midst  of  us,  unless  he  were  untrue 
to  himself,  he  could  speak  no  other  language.  Let 
us  search,  study,  work,  each  in  his  sphere,  for  the 
good,  the  just,  and  the  true,  in  natiu-e,  in  society,  in 
the  soul.  I  know  an  illustrious  statesman  who  in  our 
days  has  been  one  of  the  great  workers  of  God  in  the 
work  of  justice  on  the  earth.  Perhaps  he  has  been 
less  happy  in  his  excursions  into  the  field  of  religious 
science.  It  is  still  a  great  and  salutary  example 
which  he  has  given  to  his  contemporaries  in  turning 
to  this  side  also  his  powerful  and  brilliant  intellect. 
However  this  may  be,  just  because  we  believe  in 
God,  let  us  never  lose  our  faith  in  the  final  results  of 
sincere  search  for  truth  everywhere  and  always, 
whether  it  be  in  the  vast  and  obscure  fields  of  phys- 
ical natvu'e  or  in  the  records  which  embalm  the 
experiences  and  the  beliefs  of  oiu'  race.  This  work, 
carried  on  by  very  different  intellects,  cannot  be 
accomplished  without  discussions  or  without  errors. 
But  let  us  never  lose  courage.  3Iagna  est  Veritas  et 
prcevalehit. 

Albert  Keville,  D.D. 


MB.   GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 

BY    T.    H.   HUXLEY. 

In  controversy,  as  in  courtship,  the  good  old  rule 
to  be  off  with  the  old  before  one  is  on  with  the  new 
greatly  commends  itself  to  my  sense  of  expediency. 
And  therefore  it  appears  to  me  desii'able  that  I  should 
preface  such  observations  as  I  may  have  to  offer  upon 
the  cloud  of  arguments  (the  relevancy  of  which  to  the 
issue  which  I  had  ventured  to  raise  is  not  always 
obvious)  put  forth  by  Mi\  Gladstone  in  the  January 
number  of  this  Mevieto,  by  an  endeavor  to  make  clear 
to  such  of  our  readers  as  have  not  had  the  advantage 
of  a  forensic  education  the  present  net  result  of  the 
discussion. 

I  am  quite  aware  that,  in  undertaking  this  task,  I 
run  all  the  risks  to  which  the  man  who  presumes  to 
deal  judicially  with  his  own  cause  is  liable.  But  it  is 
exactly  because  I  do  not  shun  that  risk,  but,  rather, 
earnestly  desire  to  be  judged  by  him  who  cometh 
after  me,  provided  that  he  has  the  knowledge  and 
impartiality  apj)ropriate  to  a  judge,  that  I  adopt  my 
present  course. 

In  the  article  on  the  "  Dawn  of  Creation  and  of  Wor- 
ship" it  will  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Gladstone  unre- 
servedly commits  himself  to  three  propositions.  The 
first  is  that,  according  to  the  writer  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, the  "water-population,"  the  "  au- -population," 
and  the  "land-population"  of  the  globe  were  created 
successively,  in  the  order  named.  In  the  second 
place,  Mr.  Gladstone  authoritatively  asserts  that  this 


MR.  UPADSTONE  AND  GENESIS.  135 

(as  part  of  his  "  foui-fold  order")  lias  been  "  so  affirmed 
in  our  time  by  natiu-al  science,  that  it  may  be  taken 
as  a  demonstrated  conclusion  and  established  fact." 
In  the  thu'd  place,  Mr.  Gladstone  argues  that  the  fact 
of  this  coincidence  of  the  Pentateuchal  story  with 
the  results  of  modern  investigation  makes  it  "  impos- 
sible to  avoid  the  conclusion,  first,  that  either  this 
writer  was  gifted  with  faculties  passing  all  human 
experience,  or  else  his  knowledge  was  divine."  And, 
having  settled  to  his  own  satisfaction  that  the  first 
"  branch  of  the  alternative  is  truly  nominal  and  un- 
real," Ml-.  Gladstone  continues,  "  So  stands  the  plea 
for  a  revelation  of  truth  from  God,  a  plea  only  to  be 
met  by  questioning  its  possibility." 

I  am  a  simple-minded  person,  wholly  devoid  of 
subtlety  of  intellect,  so  that  I  willingly  admit  that 
there  may  be  depths  of  alternative  meaning  in  these 
propositions  out  of  all  soundings  attainable  by  my 
poor  plummet.  Still,  there  are  a  good  many  j^eople 
who  suffer  under  a  like  intellectual  limitation;  and, 
for  once  in  my  life,  I  feel  that  I  have  the  chance  of 
attaining  that  position  of  a  representative  of  average 
opinion  which  appears  to  be  the  modern  ideal  of  a 
leader  of  men,  when  I  make  free  confession  that,  after 
turning  the  matter  over  in  my  mind  with  all  the  aid 
derived  from  a  careful  consideration  of  Mr.  Glad- 
stone's reply,  I  cannot  get  away  from  my  original 
conviction  that,  if  Mr.  Gladstone's  second  proposition 
can  be  shown  to  be  not  merely  inaccurate,  but  di- 
rectly contradictory  of  facts  known  to  everyone  who 
is  acquainted  with  the  elements  of  natural  science, 
the  thu'd  proposition  collaj)ses  of  itself. 

And  it  was  this  conviction  which  led  me  to  enter 
upon  the  present  discussion.     I  fancied  that  if  my 


136  MR.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 

respected  clients,  the  jDeople  of  average  opinion  and 
capacity,  could  once  be  got  distinctly  to  conceive 
that  IVIi'.  Gladstone's  views  as  to  the  proper  method 
of  dealing  with  grave  and  difficult  scientific  and 
rehgious  j)i"oblems  had  permitted  him  to  base  a  sol- 
emn "plea  for  a  revelation  of  truth  from  God  "  upon 
an  error  as  to  a  matter  of  fact,  from  which  the  intel- 
ligent perusal  of  a  manual  of  paleontology  would 
have  saved  him,  I  need  not  trouble  myself  to  occupy 
their  time  and  attention  with  further  comments  upon 
his  contribution  to  apologetic  literature.  It  is  for 
others  to  judge  whether  I  have  efficiently  carried  out 
my  project  or  not.  It  certainly  does  not  count  for 
much  that  I  should  be  unable  to  find  any  flaw  in 
my  own  case,  but  I  think  that  it  counts  for  a  good 
deal  that  Mi\  Gladstone  appears  to  have  been  equally 
unable  to  do  so.  He  does,  indeed,  make  a  great 
parade  of  authorities,  and  I  have  the  greatest  respect 
for  those  authorities  whom  Mr.  Gladstone  mentions. 
If  he  will  get  them  to  sign  a  joint  memorial  to  the 
effect  that  our  joresent  paleontological  evidence 
proves  that  birds  appeared  before  the  "  land-popula- 
tion "  of  terrestrial  reptiles,  I  shall  think  it  my  duty 
to  reconsider  my  position — but  not  till  then. 

It  wni  be  observed  that  I  have  cautiously  used  the 
word  "  appears  "  in  referring  to  what  seems  to  me 
to  be  absence  of  any  real  answer  to  my  criticisms  in 
Ml".  Gladstone's  reply.  For  I  must  honestly  confess 
that,  notwithstanding  long  and  painful  strivings  after 
clear  insight,  I  am  still  uncertain  whether  Mr.  Glad- 
stone's "  Defense  "  means  that  the  great  "  plea  for  a 
revelation  from  God "  is  to  be  left  to  perish  in  the 
dialectic  desert,  or  whether  it  is  to  be  withdrawn 


MR.    GLADSTONE    AND    GENESIS.  137 

under  the  protection  of  such  sku-mishers  as  are  avail- 
able for  covering  retreat. 

In  particular  the  remarkable  disquisition  which 
covers  pages  86  to  92  of  IMi*.  Gladstone's  last  con- 
tribution has  greatly  exercised  my  mind.  Socrates 
is  reported  to  have  said  of  the  works  of  Heraclitus 
that  he  who  attempted  to  comj)rehend  them  should 
be  a  "  Delian  swimmer,"  but  that,  for  his  part,  what 
he  could  understand  was  so  good  that  he  was  dis- 
posed to  believe  in  the  excellence  of  that  which  he 
found  unintelligible.  In  endeavoring  to  make  myself 
master  of  IMi*.  Gladstone's  meaning  in  these  pages,  I 
have  often  been  overcome  by  a  feeling  analogous  to 
that  of  Socrates,  but  not  quite  the  same.  That  which 
I  do  understand,  in  fact,  has  appeared  to  me  so  very 
much  the  reverse  of  good  that  I  have  sometimes  per- 
mitted myself  to  doubt  the  value  of  that  which  I  do 
not  understand. 

In  this  part  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  reply,  in  fact,  I  find 
nothing  of  which  the  bearing  upon  my  arguments  is 
cleai'  to  me,  excej)t  that  which  relates  to  the  question 
whether  reptiles,  so  far  as  they  are  represented  by 
tortoises  and  the  great  majority  of  lizards  and  snakes, 
which  are  land  animals,  are  creeping  things  in  the 
sense  of  the  Pentateuchal  writer  or  not. 

I  have  every  respect  for  the  singer  of  the  Song  of 
the  Thi'ee  Children  (whoever  he  may  have  been);  I 
desu'e  to  cast  no  shadow  of  doubt  upon,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  marvel  at,  the  exactness  of  Mr.  Gladstone's 
information  as  to  the  considerations  which  "  afiected 
the  method  of  the  Mosaic  writer ; "  nor  do  I  ventui'e 
to  doubt  that  the  inconvenient  intrusion  of  these  con- 
temptible reptiles — "  a  family  fallen  from  greatness  " 
(p.  91),  a  miserable  decayed  aristocracy  reduced  to 


138  MR.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 

mere  "skulkers  about  the  esa-th."  (ibid.) — inconse- 
quence apparently  of  difficulties  about  the  occupation 
of  land  arising  out  of  the  earth -hunger  of  their  former 
serfs,  the  mammals — into  an  apologetic  argument, 
which  otherwise  would  run  quite  smoothly,  is  in 
every  way  to  be  deprecated.  Still,  the  wretched 
creatures  stand  there,  importunately  demanding 
notice ;  and,  however  different  may  be  the  practice  in 
that  contentious  atmosphere  with  which  Mr,  Glad- 
stone expresses  and  laments  his  familiarity,  in  the 
atmosjDhere  of  science  it  really  is  of  no  avail  whatever 
to  shut  one's  eyes  to  facts,  or  to  try  to  bury  them 
out  of  sight  under  a  tumulus  of  rhetoric.  That  is 
my  experience  of  "  the  Elysian  regions  of  Science," 
wherein  it  is  a  pleasure  to  me  to  think  that  a  man  of 
Mr.  Gladstone's  intimate  knowledge  of  English  life 
during  the  last  quarter  of  a  centui-y  believes  my 
philosophic  existence  to  have  been  rounded  off  in  un- 
broken equanimity. 

However  reprehensible,  and  indeed  contemptible, 
terrestrial  reptiles  may  be,  the  only  question  which 
appears  to  me  to  be  relevant  to  my  argument  is  whether 
these  creatru'e  are  or  are  not  comprised  under  the  de- 
nomination of  "  everything  that  creepeth  upon  the 
ground." 

IVIr.  Gladstone  speaks  of  the  author  of  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis  as  "  the  Mosaic  writer  ; "  I  suj)- 
pose,  therefore,  that  he  will  admit  that  it  is  equally 
proper  to  speak  of  the  author  of  Leviticus  as  the 
"Mosaic  writer."  Whether  such  a  phrase  would  be 
used  by  any  one  who  had  an  adequate  conception  of 
the  assured  results  of  modern  BibHcal  criticism  is 
another  matter  ;  but,  at  any  rate,  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  Leviticus  has  as  much  claim  to  Mosaic  author- 


MR.    GLADSTONE    AND    GENESIS.  139 

ship  as  Genesis.  Therefore,  if  one  wants  to  know 
the  sense  of  a  phrase  used  in  Genesis,  it  will  be  well 
to  see  what  Leviticus  has  to  say  on  the  matter. 
Hence,  I  commend  the  following  extract  from  the 
eleventh  chapter  of  Leviticus  to  Mr.  Gladstone's 
serious  attention : 

And  these  are  they  which  are  uuclean  unto  you  among  the 
creeping  things  tliat  creep  upon  the  eartli :  tlie  weasel,  and 
the  mouse,  and  the  great  lizard  after  its  kind,  and  the  gecko, 
and  the  land-crocodile,  and  the  saud-li^ard,  and  the  cha- 
meleon. These  are  they  which  are  unclean  to  you  among  all 
that  creep  (v.  29-31. 

The  merest  Sunday-school  exegesis  therefore  suf- 
fices to  prove  that  when  the  "Mosaic  vn'iter  "  in  Gen- 
esis i,  24,  speaks  of  "  creeping  things  "  he  means  to 
include  lizards  among  them. 

This  being  so,  it  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that  ter- 
restrial lizards,  and  other  rej)tiles  allied  to  lizards, 
occur  in  the  Permian  strata.  It  is  further  agreed 
that  the  Triassic  strata  were  deposited  after  these. 
Moreover,  it  is  well  known  that,  even  if  certain,  foot- 
prints are  to  be  taken  as  unquestionable  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  birds,  they  are  not  known  to  occur  in 
rocks  earlier  than  the  Trias,  while  indubitable  remains 
of  bu'ds  are  to  be  met  with  only  much  later.  Hence 
it  follows  that  natural  science  does  not  "  affirm  "  the 
statement  that  birds  were  made  on  the  fifth  day,  and 
"  everything  that  creepeth  on  the  ground  "  on  the 
sixth,  on  which  Mr.  Gladstone  rests  his  order  ;  for,  as 
is  shown  by  Leviticus,  the  "Mosaic  writer"  includes 
lizards  among  his  "  creeping  things." 

Perhaps  I  have  given  myself  superfluous  trouble 
in  the  preceding  argument,  for  I  find  that  Mr.  Glad- 
stone is  willing  to  assume  (he  does  not  say  to  admit) 


140  MR.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 

that  the  statement  in  the  text  of  Genesis  as  to  rep- 
tiles cannot  "  in  all  points  be  sustained."  But  my 
position  is  that  it  cannot  be  sustained  in  any  point, 
so  that,  after  all,  it  has  perhaps  been  as  well  to  go 
over  the  evidence  again.  And  then  Mr.  Gladstone 
proceeds,  as  if  nothing  had  happened,  to  tell  us  that — 

There  remain  great  unshaken  facts  to  be  weighed.  First, 
the  fact  that  such  a  record  should  have  been  made  at  all. 

As  most  peoples  have  their  cosmogonies,  this 
"  fact "  does  not  strike  me  as  having  much  value. 

Secondly,  the  fact  that,  instead  of  dwelling  in  generalities, 
it  has  placed  itself  under  the  severe  conditions  of  a  chrono- 
logical order  reaching  from  the  first  nisus  of  chaotic  matter 
to  the  consummated  production  of  a  fair  and  goodly,  a  fur- 
nished and  a  peopled  world. 

This  "  fact  "  can  be  regarded  as  of  value  only  by 
ignoring  the  fact  demonstrated  in  my  previous  j)aper 
that  natui-al  science  does  not  confirm  the  order 
asserted  so  far  as  living  things  are  concerned ;  and 
by  upsetting  a  fact  to  be  brought  to  light  presently, 
to  wit,  that,  in  regard  to  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuchal 
cosmogony,  prudent  science  has  very  litle  to  say  one 
way  or  the  other. 

Thirdly,  the  fact  that  its  cosmogony  seems,  in  the  light  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  to  draw  more  and  more  of  coun- 
tenance from  the  best  natural  philosophy. 

I  have  ah-eady  questioned  the  accuracy  of  this 
statement,  and  I  do  not  observe  that  mere  rej)etition 
adds  to  its  value. 

And,  fourthly,  that  it  has  described  the  successive  origins 
of  the  five  great  categories  of  present  life  with  which  human 
experience  was  and  is  conversant,  in  that  order  which  geo- 
logical authority  confirms. 

By  comparison  with   a   sentence  on  page  92,  in 


MK.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS.  141 

wliicli  a  fivefold  order  is  substituted  for  tlie  "  four- 
fold order,"  on  which  the  "  plea  for  Revelation  "  was 
originally  founded,  it  appears  that  these  five  cate- 
gories are  "  plants,  fishes,  bu'ds,  mammals  and  man," 
which,  Mr.  Gladstone  affirms,  "  are  given  to  us  in 
Genesis  in  the  order  of  succession  in  which  they  are 
also  given  by  the  latest  geological  authorities." 

I  must  venture  to  demur  to  this  statement.  I 
showed,  in  my  previous  paper,  that  there  is  no  reason 
to  doubt  that  the  term  "great  sea  monsters  "  (used  in 
Genesis  i,  21)  includes  the  most  conspicuous  of  great 
sea  animals — namely,  whales,  dolphins,  porpoises, 
manatees,  and  dugongs  ;*  and  as  these  are  indubit- 
able mammals,  it  is  impossible  to  affirm  that  mam- 
mals come  after  bu'ds,  which  are  said  to  have  been 
ci'eated  on  the  same  day.  Moreover,  I  pointed  out 
that  as  these  Cetacea  and  Sirenia  are  certainly  modi- 
fied land  animals,  then*  existence  implies  the  ante- 
cedent existence  of  land  mammals. 

Furthermore,  I  have  to  remark  that  the  term 
"  fishes,"  as  used  technically  in  zoology,  by  no  means 
covers  all  the  moving  creatures  that  have  life,  which 
are  bidden  to  "  fill  the  waters  in  the  seas"  (Genesis 
i,  20-22).  Marine  mollusks  and  Crustacea,  echino- 
derms,  corals,  and  foraminifera  are  not  technically 
fishes.  But  they  are  abundant  in  the  paleozoic  rocks, 
ages  upon  ages  older  than  those  in  which  the  first 
evidences  of  true  fishes  ajDpear.  And  if,  in  a  geolog- 
ical book,  Ml-.  Gladstone  finds  the  quite  true  state- 
ment that  plants  appeared  before  fishes,  it  is  only  by 
a  complete  misunderstanding  that  he   can  be  led  to 

*Both  dolphins  and  dugongs  occur  in  the  Red  Sea,  por- 
poises and  dolphins  in  the  Mediterranean ;  so  that  the 
"  Mosaic  writer"  may  well  have  been  acquainted  with  them. 


142  MR.    GLADSTONE   AND    GENESIS^. 

imagine  it  serves  liis  pm-pose.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
at  the  present  moment,  it  is  a  question  whether,  on 
the  bare  evidence  afforded  by  fossils,  the  marine  creep- 
ing things  or  the  marine  plant  has  the  seniority.  No 
cautious  paleontologist  would  express  a  decided  opin- 
ion on  the  matter.  But,  if  we  are  to  read  the  Penta- 
teuchal  statement  as  a  scientific  document  (and,  in 
spite  of  all  protests  to  the  contrary,  those  who  bring 
it  into  comparison  with  science  do  seek  to  make  a 
scientific  document  of  it),  then,  as  it  is  quite  clear, 
that  only  terrestrial  plants  of  high  organization  are 
spoken  of  in  verses  11  and  12,  no  paleontologist 
would  hesitate  to  say  that,  at  present,  the  records  of 
sea  animal  hfe  are  vastly  older  than  those  of  any  land 
plant  describable  as  "  grass,  herb  yielding  seed,  or 
fruit-tree." 

Thus,  although,  in  Mr.  Gladstone's  "  Defense,"  the 
"  old  order  passeth  into  new,"  his  case  is  not  im- 
proved. The  fivefold  order  is  no  more  "  affirmed  in 
our  time  by  natui-al  science  "  to  be  a  "  demonstrated 
conclusion  and  established  fact "  than  the  fourfold 
order  was.  Natiu-al  science  appeal's  to  me  to  decline 
to  have  anything  to  do  with  either ;  they  are  as 
wrong  in  detail  as  they  are  mistaken  in  piinciple. 

There  is  another  change  of  position,  the  value  of 
which  is  not  so  apparent  to  me  as  it  may  well  seem 
to  be  to  those  who  are  unfamiliar  with  the  subject 
under  discussion.  Mr.  Gladstone  discards  his  three 
groups  of  "water-population,"  "  aii'-population,"  and 
"land-population,"  and  substitutes  for  them  (1) 
fishes,  (2)  birds,  (3)  mammals,  (4)  man.  Moreover, 
it  is  assumed  in  a  note  that  "the  higher  or  ordinary 
mammals  "  alone  were  known  to  the  "  Mosaic  writer  " 
(l5.  78).     No  doubt  it  looks,  at  first,  as  if  something 


MR.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS.  143 

were  gained  by  this  alteration  ;  for,  as  I  have  just 
pointed  out,  the  word  "fishes "  can  be  used  in  two 
senses,  one  of  which  has  a  deceptive  appearance  of 
adjustability  to  the  "Mosaic"  account.  Then  the 
inconvenient  reptiles  are  banished  out  of  sight ;  and, 
finally,  the  question  of  the  exact  meaning  of  "higher  " 
and  "  ordinary"  in  the  case  of  mammals  opens  up  the 
prospect  of  a  hopeful  logomachy.  But  what  is  the 
good  of  it  all  in  the  face  of  Leviticus  on  the  one 
hand  and  of  paleontogy  on  the  other  ? 

As,  in  my  apprehension,  there  is  not  a  shadow  of 
justification  for  the  suggestion  that  when  the  Penta- 
teuchal  writer  says  "  fowl "  he  excludes  bats  (which, 
as  we  shall  see  directly,  are  expressly  included  under 
"fowl"  in  Leviticus),  and  as  I  have  already  shown 
that  he  demonstrably  includes  reptiles,  as  well  as 
mammals,  among  the  creeping  things  of  the  land,  I 
may  be  permitted  to  spare  my  readers  fui'ther  dis- 
cussion of  the  "  fivefold  order."  On  the  whole,  it  is 
seen  to  be  rather  more  inconsistent  with  Genesis  than 
its  foui'fold  predecessor. 

But  I  have  yet  a  fresh  order  to  face.  Mr.  Glad- 
stone understands  "  the  main  statements  of  Genesis, 
in  successive  order  of  time,  but  without  any  measure- 
ment of  its  divisions,  to  be  as  follows  : 

1.  A  period  of  land,  anterior  to  all  life  (v.  9  and  10). 

2.  A  period  of  vegetable  life,  anterior  to  animal  life  (v.  11 
and  12). 

3.  A  period  of  animal  life,  in  the  order  of  fishes  (v.  20). 

4.  Another  stage  of  animal  life,  in  the  order  of  birds. 

5.  Another,  in  the  order  of  beasts  (v.  24  and  25). 

6.  Last  of  all,  man  (v.  26  and  27). 

]VIi\  Gladstone  then  tries  to  find  the  proof  of  the 


144  MR.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 

occuiTence  of  a  similar  succession  in  sundi-y  excellent 
works  on  geology. 

I  am  really  grieved  to  be  obliged  to  say  that  tliis 
thii'd  (or  is  it  fourth  ?)  modification  of  the  fovmdation 
of  the  "  plea  for  Revelation  "  originally  set  forth,  sat- 
isfies me  as  httle  as  any  of  its  jDredecessors. 

For,  in  the  first  place,  I  cannot  accept  the  assertion 
that  this  order  is  to  be  found  in  Genesis.  With 
respect  to  No.  3,  for  example,  I  hold,  as  I  have 
already  said,  that  "  great  sea  monsters  "  includes  the 
Cetacea,  in  which  case  mammals  (which  is  what,  I 
suppose,  Mr.  Gladstone  means  by  "  beasts  ")  come  in 
under  head  No.  3,  and  not  under  No.  5.  Again, 
"  fowl "  are  said  in  Genesis  to  be  created  on  the  same 
day  as  fishes;  therefore  I  cannot  accept  an  order 
which  makes  birds  succeed  fishes.  Once  more,  as  it 
is  quite  certain  that  the  term  "  fowl "  includes  the 
bats — for  in  Leviticus  xi,  13-19,  we  read,  "  And 
these  shall  ye  have  in  abomination  among  the  fowls 
.  .  .  the  heron  after  its  kind,  and  the  hoopoe, 
and  the  bat " — it  is  obvious  that  bats  are  also  said  to 
have  been  created  at  stage  No.  3.  And  as  bats  are 
mammals,  and  theu*  existence  obviously  presupposes 
that  of  terrestrial  "  beasts,"  it  is  quite  clear  that  the 
latter  could  not  have  first  appeared  as  No.  5.  I  need 
not  repeat  my  reasons  for  doubting  whether  man 
came  "  last  of  all." 

As  the  latter  half  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  sixfold  order 
thus  shows  itself  wholly  unauthorized  by,  and  incon- 
sistent with,  the  plain  language  of  the  Pentateuch,  I 
might  decline  to  discuss  the  admissibility  of  its  former 
half. 

But  I  will  add  one  or  two  remai'ks  on  this  point 
also.     Does  Mr.  Gladstone  mean  to  say  that  in  any  of 


MR.    GLADSTONE    AND    GENESIS.  145 

the  works  he  has  cited,  or  indeed  anywhere  else,  he 
can  find  scientific  warranty  for  the  assertion  that 
there  was  a  period  of  land — by  which  I  suppose  he 
means  diy  land  (for  submerged  land  must  needs  be 
as  old  as  the  separate  existence  of  the  sea) — "  anterior 
to  all  life  r 

It  may  be  so,  or  it  may  not  be  so ;  but  where  is 
the  evidence  which  would  justify  anyone  in  making  a 
positive  assertion  on  the  subject  ?  What  competent 
paleontologist  will  affirm,  at  this  present  moment, 
that  he  knows  anything  about  the  jDeriod  at  which 
life  originated,  or  will  assert  more  than  the  extreme 
probability  that  such  origin  was  a  long  way  ante- 
cedent to  any  traces  of  life  at  present  known  ?  What 
physical  geologist  will  affirm  that  he  knows  when  dry 
land  began  to  exist,  or  will  say  more  than  that  it  was 
probably  very  much  earlier  than  any  extant  direct 
evidence  of  terrestrial  conditions  indicates  ? 

I  think  I  know  pretty  well  the  answers  which  the 
authorities  quoted  by  Mr.  Gladstone  would  give  to 
these  questions  ;  but  I  leave  it  to  them  to  give  them 
if  they  think  fit. 

If  I  ventm-ed  to  speculate  on  the  matter  at  all,  I 
should  say  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  sea  is  older 
than  di-y  land,  inasmuch  as  a  solid  terrestrial  surface 
may  very  well  have  existed  before  the  earth  was  cool 
enough  to  allow  of  the  existence  of  fluid  water.  And 
in  this  case  dry  land  may  have  existed  before  the  sea. 
As  to  the  first  appearance  of  life,  the  whole  argument 
of  analogy,  whatever  it  may  be  worth  in  such  a  case, 
is  in  favor  of  the  absence  of  living  beings  until  long 
after  the  hot  water  seas  had  constituted  themselves ; 
and  of  the  subsequent  appearance  of  aquatic  before 
terrestrial  forms  of  hfe.     But  whether  these  "  proto- 


146  MK.    GLADSTONE    AND    GENESIS. 

plasts "  would,  if  we  could  examine  tbem,  be  reck- 
oned among  the  lowest  microscopic  algae,  or  fungi,  or 
among  those  doubtful  organisms  which  he  in  the  de- 
batable land  between  animals  and  plants,  is,  in  my 
judgment,  a  question  on  which  a  prudent  biologist 
will  reserve  his  opinion. 

I  think  that  I  have  now  disposed  of  those  parts  of 
Mr.  Gladstone's  defense  in  which  I  seem  to  discover 
a  design  to  rescue  his  solemn  "  plea  for  Kevelation." 
But  a  great  deal  of  the  "Proem  to  Genesis  "  remains 
which  I  would  gladly  pass  over  in  silence,  were  such 
a  course  consistent  with  the  respect  due  to  so  distin- 
guished a  champion  of  the  "  reconcilers." 

I  hope  that  my  clients — the  peoj)le  of  average 
opinions — have  by  this  time  some  confidence  in  me ; 
for  when  I  tell  them  that,  after  all.  Mi".  Gladstone  is 
of  opinion  that  the  "Mosaic  record"  was  meant  to 
give  moral  and  not  scientific  instruction  to  those  for 
whom  it  was  written,  they  may  be  disposed  to  think 
that  I  must  be  misleading  them.  But  let  them  listen 
fuifcher  to  what  IVIr.  Gladstone  says  in  a  compendious 
but  not  exactly  correct  statement  respecting  my 
opinions : 

He  holds  the  writer  responsible  for  scientiiic  precision ;  I 
look  for  nothing  of  the  kind,  but  assign  to  him  a  statement 
general,  which  admits  exceptions ;  popular,  which  aims 
mainly  at  producing  moral  impressions ;  summary,  which 
cannot  but  be  open  to  more  or  less  of  criticism  of  detail. 
He  thinks  it  is  a  lecture.     I  think  it  is  a  sermon  (p.  77). 

I  note,  incidentally,  that  Mr.  Gladstone  appears  to 
consider  that  the  differentia  between  a  lectui'e  and  a 
sermon  is  that  the  former,  so  far  as  it  deals  with 
matters  of  fact,  may  be  taken  seriously,  as  meaning 


MR.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS.  147 

exactly  what  it  says,  while  a  sermon  may  not.  I 
have  quite  enough  on  my  hands  without  taking  up 
the  cudgels  for  the  clergy,  who  will  probably  find 
'Ml.  Gladstone's  definition  unflattering. 

But  I  am  diverging  from  my  proper  business, 
which  is  to  say  that  I  have  given  no  ground  for  the 
ascription  of  these  opinions,  and  that,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  I  do  not  hold  them,  and  never  have  held  them. 
It  is  Mr.  Gladstone,  and  not  I,  who  will  have  it  that 
the  Pentateuchal  cosmogony  is  to  be  taken  as  science. 

My  belief,  on  the  contrary,  is,  and  long  has  been, 
that  the  Pentateuchal  story  of  the  creation  is  simply 
a  myth.  I  suppose  it  to  be  a  hypothesis  respecting 
the  origin  of  the  universe  which  some  ancient  thinker 
found  himself  able  to  reconcile  with  his  knowledge, 
or  what  he  thought  was  knowledge,  of  the  natm'e  of 
things,  and  therefore  assumed  to  be  true.  As  such, 
I  hold  it  to  be  not  merely  an  interesting  but  a  venera- 
ble monument  of  a  stage  in  the  mental  progress  of 
mankind,  and  I  find  it  difiicult  to  suppose  that  any 
one  who  is  acquainted  with  the  cosmogonies  of  other 
nations — and  especially  with  those  of  the  Egyptians 
and  the  Babylonians,  with  whom  the  Israelites  were 
in  such  frequent  and  intimate  communication — 
should  consider  it  to  possess  either  more  or  less 
scientific  importance  than  may  be  allotted  to  these. 

Mr.  Gladstone's  definition  of  a  sermon  permits  me 
to  suspect  that  he  may  not  see  much  drffei'ence  be- 
tween that  form  of  discourse  and  what  I  call  a  myth ; 
and  I  hope  it  may  be  something  more  than  the  slow- 
ness of  ajpprehension  to  which  I  have  confessed  which 
leads  me  to  imagine  that  a  statement  which  is  "  gen- 
eral" but  " admits  exceptions,"  which  is  "popular" 
and  "  aims  mainly  at  producing  moral  impressions," 


148  ME.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 

"summary"  and  therefore  open  to  "criticism  of  de- 
tail," amounts  to  a  myth,  or  perhaps  less  than  a  myth. 
Put  algebraically,  it  comes  to  this:  x—a-\-b-\-c/ 
always  remembering  that  there  is  nothing  to  show 
the  exact  value  of  either  a,  or  b,  or  c.  It  is  true  that 
a  is  commonly  supjDosed  to  equal  10,  but  there  are 
exceptions,  and  these  may  reduce  it  to  8,  or  3,  or  0 ; 
b  also  popularly  means  10,  but  being  chiefly  used  by 
the  algebraist  as  a  "  moral "  value,  you  cannot  do 
much  with  it  in  the  addition  or  subtraction  of  math- 
ematical values;  c  also  is  quite  "summary,"  and  if 
you  go  into  the  details  of  which  it  is  made  up,  many 
of  them  may  be  wrong,  and  their  sum  total  equal  to 
0,  or  even  to  a  minus  quantity. 

Mr.  Gladstone  appears  to  \nsh  that  I  should  (1) 
enter  upon  a  sort  of  essay  competition  with  the  author 
of  the  Pentateuchal  cosmogony;  (2)  that  I  should 
make  a  fiu'ther  statement  about  some  elementary 
facts  in  the  history  of  Indian  and  Greek  philosophy ; 
and  (3)  that  I  should  show  cause  for  my  hesitation 
in  accej)ting  the  assertion  that  Genesis  is  supported, 
at  any  rate  to  the  extent  of  the  first  two  verses,  by 
the  nebular  hypothesis. 

A  certain  sense  of  humor  prevents  me  from  accept- 
ing the  first  invitation.  I  would  as  soon  attempt  to 
put  Hamlet's  soliloquy  into  a  more  scientific  shape. 
But  if  I  supposed  the  "Mosaic  writer"  to  be  inspired, 
as  Mr.  Gladstone  does,  it  would  not  be  consistent 
with  my  notions  of  respect  for  the  supreme  being  to 
imagine  him  unable  to  frame  a  form  of  words  which 
should  acciirately,  or  at  least  not  inaccurately,  express 
his  own  meaning.  It  is  sometimes  said  that,  had  the 
statements  contained  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 
been  scientifically  true,  they  would  have  been  unintel- 


MK.    GLADSTONE   AND    GENESIS.  149 

ligible  to  ignorant  people;  but  how  is  the  matter 
mended  if,  being  scientifically  untrue^  they  must 
needs  be  rejected  by  instructed  people? 

With  respect  to  the  second  suggestion,  it  would  be 
presumptuous  in  me  to  pretend  to  instruct  Mr.  Glad- 
stone in  matters  which  lie  as  much  within  the  prov- 
ince of  hteratui'e  and  history  as  in.  that  of  science; 
but  if  anyone  desu-ous  of  further  knowledge  will  be 
so  good  as  to  turn  to  that  most  excellent  and  by  no 
means  recondite  source  of  information,  the  Encyclo- 
pedia Britannica,  he  will  find,  under  the  letter  £!,  the 
word  "  Evolution,"  and  a  long  article  on  that  subject. 
Now,  I  do  not  recommend  him  to  read  the  first  half 
of  the  article ;  but  the  second  half,  by  my  friend  Mr. 
Sully,  is  really  very  good.  He  will  there  find  it  said 
that  in  some  of  the  philosophies  of  ancient  India  the 
idea  of  evolution  is  clearly  expressed:  "Brahma  is 
conceived  as  the  eternal  self-existent  being,  which, 
on  its  material  side,  unfolds  itself  to  the  world  by 
gradually  condensing  itself  to  material  objects  through 
the  gradations  of  ether,  fire,  water,  earth,  and  other 
elements." 

And  again :  "  In  the  later  system  of  emanation 
of  Sankhya  there  is  a  more  marked  approach  to 
a  materialistic  doctrine  of  evolution."  What  httle 
knowledge  I  have  of  the  matter — chiefly  derived 
from  that  very  instructive  book,  "  Die  Religion  of 
Buddha"  by  C.  F.  Koeppen,  supplemented  by 
Hardy's  interesting  works — leads  me  to  think  that 
Ml'.  Sully  might  have  spoken  much  more  strongly  as 
to  the  evolutionary  character  of  Indian  philosophy, 
and  especially  of  that  of  the  Buddhists.  But  the 
question  is  too  lai'ge  to  be  dealt  with  incidentally. 


150  ME.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 

And  with  respect  to  early  Greek  philosophy*  the 
seeker  after  .additional  enlightenment  need  go  no 
further  than  the  same  excellent  storehouse  of  infor- 
mation : 

The  early  Ionian  physicists,  including  Tliales,  Anaximan- 
der,  and  Anaximenes,  seek  to  explain  the  world  as  generated 
out  of  a  primordial  matter  which  is  at  the  same  time  the  uni- 
versal support  of  things.  This  substance  is  endowed  with  a 
generative  or  transmutative  force  by  virtue  of  which  it  passes 
into  a  succession  of  forms.  They  thus  resemble  modern  ev- 
olutionists, since  they  regard  the  world,  with  its  infinite 
variety  of  forms,  as  issuing  from  a  simple  mode  of  matter. 

Further  on,  Mr.  Sully  remarks  that  "Heraclitus 
deserves  a  prominent  place  inthe  history  of  the  idea 
of  evolution,"  and  he  states,  with  perfect  justice,  that 
Heraclitus  has  foreshadowed  some  of  the  special  pe- 
culiarities of  Mr.  Darwin's  views.  It  is  indeed  a  very 
strange  cu'cumstance  that  the  philosophy  of  the  great 
Ephesian  more  than  adumbrates  the  two  doctrines 
which  have  played  leading  parts,  the  one  in  the  de- 
velopment of  Christian  dogma,  the  other  in  that  of 
natural  science.  The  former  is  the  conception  of  the 
Word  which  took  its  Jewish  shape  in  Alexandria,  and 
its  Christian  formf  in  that  gospel  which  is  usually 
referred  to  an  Ephesian  source  of  some  five  centu- 
ries later  date;  and  the  latter  is  that  of  the  struggle 
for  existence.  The  saying  that  "  strife  is  father  and 
king  of  all,"  ascribed  to  Heraclitus,  would  be  a  not 
inappropriate  motto  for  the  "  Origin  of  Species." 


*I  said  nothing  about  ' '  the  greater  number  of  schools  of 
Greek  philosophy,"  as  Mr.  Gladstone  implies  that  I  did,  but 
expressly  spoke  of  the  "  founders  of  Greek  philosophy." 

tSee  Heinze,  Die  Lehre  vom  Logos,  p.  9,  et  seq. 


MR.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS.  151 

I  have  referred  only  to  Mi-.  Sully's  article,  because 
his  authority  is  quite  sufl&cient  for  iny  purpose.  But 
the  consultation  of  any  of  the  more  elaborate  histo- 
ries of  Greek  philosophy,  such  as  the  great  work  of 
Zeller,  for  example,  will  only  bring  out  the  same  fact 
into  still  more  striking  prominence.  I  have  professed 
no  "  minute  acquaintance "  with  either  Indian  or 
Greek  philosophy,  but  I  have  taken  a  great  deal  of 
pains  to  secure  that  such  knowledge  as  I  do  possess 
shall  be  accurate  and  trustworthy. 

In  the  third  place,  Mr.  Gladstone  appears  to  wish 
that  I  should  discuss  with  him  the  question  whether 
the  nebular  hypothesis  is  or  is  not  confirmatory  of 
the  Pentateuchal  account  of  the  origin  of  things. 
Mr.  Gladstone  appeal's  to  be  prepai'ed  to  enter  upon 
this  campaign  with  a  light  heart.  I  confess  I  am 
not,  and  my  reason  for  this  backwardness  will  doubt- 
less surprise  Mr.  Gladstone.  It  is  that,  rather  more 
than  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago  (namely  in  Februai'y, 
1859),  when  it  was  my  duty,  as  president  of  the  Geo- 
logical Society,  to  deliver  the  anniversai'y  address 
(reprinted  in  Lay  Sermons,  Addresses,  and  Reviews, 
1870),  I  chose  a  topic  which  involved  a  very  careful 
study  of  the  remarkable  cosmogonical  speculation 
originally  promulgated  by  Immanuel  Kant,  and  sub- 
sequently by  Laplace,  which  is  now  known  as  the 
nebular  hypothesis.  With  the  help  of  such  little 
acquaintance  with  the  principles  of  physics  and 
astronomy  as  I  had  gained,  I  endeavored  to  obtain  a 
clear  understanding  of  this  speculation  in  all  its  bear- 
ings. I  am  not  sure  that  I  succeeded ;  but  of  this  I 
am  certain,  that  the  problems  involved  are  very  diffi- 
cult, even  for  those  who  possess  the  intellectual  dis- 
cipline requisite  for  dealing  with  them.     And  it  was 


152  MB.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 

this  conviction  tliat  led  me  to  express  my  desire  to 
leave  the  discussion  of  the  question  of  the  asserted 
harmony  between  Genesis  and  the  nebiilar  hypothesis 
to  experts  in  the  appropriate  branches  of  knowledge. 
And  I  think  my  course  was  a  wise  one  ;  but  as  Mr. 
Gladstone  evidently  does  not  understand  how  there 
can  be  any  hesitation  on  my  part,  unless  it  arises 
from  a  conviction  that  he  is  in  the  right,  I  may  go  so 
far  as  to  set  out  my  difficulties. 

They  are  of  two  kinds — exegetical  and  scientific. 
It  apjDears  to  me  that  it  is  vain  to  discuss  a  supposed 
coincidence  between  Genesis  and  science,  unless  we 
have  first  settled,  on  the  one  hand,  what  Genesis 
says,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  what  science  says. 

In  the  fii'st  place,  I  cannot  find  any  consensus 
among  Biblical  scholars  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
words,  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and 
the  earth."  Some  say  that  the  Hebrew  word  hara, 
which  is  translated  "create,"  means  "made  out  of 
nothing."  I  venture  to  object  to  that  rendering,  not 
on  the  ground  of  scholarship,  but  of  common  sense. 
Omnipotence  itself  can  sui'ely  no  more  make  some- 
thing "  out  of  "  nothing  than  it  can  make  a  triangular 
cii'cle.  What  is  intended  by  "made  out  of  nothing" 
appears  to  be  "  caused  to  come  into  existence,"  with 
the  imphcation  that  nothing  of  the  same  kind  pre- 
viously existed.  It  is  further  usually  assumed  that 
"  the  heaven  and  the  earth  "  means  the  material  sub- 
stance of  the  universe.  Hence  the  "  Mosaic  writer  " 
is  taken  to  imply  that  where  nothing  of  a  material 
nature  previously  existed,  this  substance  appeared. 
That  is  perfectly  conceivable,  and  therefore  no  one 
can  deny  that  it  may  have  happened.  But  there  are 
other  very  authoritative   critics  who   say   that   the 


MR.    GLADSTONE   AND    GENESIS.  153 

ancient  Israelite*  who  wrote  the  passage  was  not 
Hkely  to  have  been  capable  of  such  abstract  thinking, 
and  that,  as  a  matter  of  philology,  hara  is  commonly 
used  to  signify  the  "  fashioning,"  or  "  forming,"  of 
that  which  akeady  exists.  Now  it  appears  to  me 
that  the  scientific  investigator  is  wholly  incompetent 
to  say  anything  at  all  about  the  first  origin  of  the 
material  iiniverse.  The  whole  power  of  his  organon 
vanishes  when  he  has  to  step  beyond  the  chain  of 
natvu'al  causes  and  effects.  No  form  of  the  nebular 
hypothesis  that  I  know  of  is  necessarily  connected 
with  any  view  of  the  origination  of  the  nebular  sub- 
stance. Kant's  form  of  it  expressly  supposes  that 
the  nebular  material  from  which  one  stellar  system 
starts  may  be  nothing  but  the  disintegrated  substance 
of  a  stellar  and  planetary  system  which  has  just  come 
to  an  end.  Therefore,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  one  who  be- 
Heves  that  matter  has  existed  from  all  eternity  has  just 
as  much  right  to  hold  the  nebular  hypothesis  as  one 
who  believes  that  matter  came  into  existence  at  a 
specified  epoch.  In  other  words,  the  nebular 
hypothesis  and  the  creation  hypothesis,  up  to  this 
point,  neither  confirm  nor  oj)pose  one  another. 

Next,  we  read  in  the  revisers'  version,  in  which  I 
suppose  the  ultimate  results  of  critical  scholarship  to 
be  embodied :  "  And  the  earth  was  waste  [without 
form,  in  the  authorized  version]  and  void."  Most 
people  seem  to  think  that  this  phraseology  intends 
to  imply  that  the  matter  out  of  which  the  world  was 
to  be  formed  was  a  veritable  "  chaos  "  devoid  of  law 


*"  Ancient,"  doubtless,  but  his  antiquity  must  not  be  ex- 
aggerated. For  example,  there  is  no  proof  that  the  "  Mo- 
saic "  cosmogony  was  known  to  the  Israelites  of  Solomon's 
time. 


154  MR.    GLADSTONE    AND    GENESIS. 

and  order.  If  this  interpretation  is  correct,  the  neb- 
ular hypothesis  can  have  nothing  to  say  to  it.  The 
scientific  thinker  cannot  admit  the  absence  of  law 
and  order,  anywhere  or  any  when,  in  natiu-e.  Some- 
times law  and  order  are  patent  and  visible  to  our 
limited  vision;  sometimes  they  are  hidden.  But 
every  particle  of  the  matter  of  the  most  fantastic- 
looking  nebula  in  the  heavens  is  a  realm  of  law  and 
order  in  itself,  and  that  it  is  so  is  the  essential  condi- 
tion of  the  possibihty  of  solar  and  planetary  evolution 
fi'om  the  ajDparent  chaos.* 

"  Waste  "  is  too  vague  a  term  to  be  worth  consid- 
eration. "  Without  form,"  iatelligible  enough  as  a 
metaphor,  if  taken  literally,  is  absurd  ;  for  a  material 
thing  existing  in  space  must  have  a  superficies,  and 
if  it  has  a  superficies  it  has  a  form.  The  wildest 
streaks  of  marestail  clouds  in  the  sky,  or  the  most 
irregular  heavenly  nebulae,  have  sui'ely  just  as  much 
form  as  a  geometrical  tetrahedi'on  ;  and  as  for  "  void," 
how  can  that  be  void  which  is  full  of  matter  ?  As 
poetry,  these  lines  are  vivid  and  admu-able;  as  a 
scientific  statement,  which  they  must  be  taken  to  be 
if  any  one  is  justified  in  comparing  them  with  an- 
other scientific  statement,  they  fail  to  convey  any 
intelligible  conception  to  my  mind. 

The  account  proceeds:  "And  darkness  was  upon 
the  face  of  the  deep."  So  be  it ;  but  where,  then,  is 
the  likeness  to  the  celestial  nebvdse,  of  the  existence 
of  which  we  should  know  nothing  vmless  they  shone 
with  a  light  of  their  own  ?     "  And  the  spirit  of  God 


*When  Jeremiah  (iv.  23)  says,  "I  beheld  the  earth,  and, 
lo,  it  was  waste  and  void,"  he  certainly  does  not  mean  to  im- 
ply that  the  form  of  the  earth  was  less  definite,  or  its  sub- 
stance less  solid,  than  before. 


MK.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS.  155 

moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters."  I  have  met  with 
no  form  of  the  nebular  hypothesis  which  involves 
anything  analogous  to  this  j)rocess. 

I  have  said  enough  to  explain  some  of  the  difficul- 
ties which  arise  in  my  mind  when  I  try  to  ascertain 
whether  there  is  any  foundation  for  the  contention 
that  the  statements  contained  in  the  first  two  verses 
of  Genesis  are  supported  by  the  nebular  hypothesis. 
The  result  does  not  appeal'  to  me  to  be  exactly  favor- 
able to  that  contention.  The  nebular  hypothesis 
assumes  the  existence  of  matter  having  definite  prop- 
erties as  its  foundation.  Whether  such  matter  was 
created  a  few  thousand  years  ago,  or  whether  it  has 
existed  through  an  eternal  series  of  metamorphoses 
of  which  our  j)resent  universe  is  only  the  last  stage, 
are  alternativs,  neither  of  which  is  scientifically 
untenable,  and  neither  scientifically  demonstrable. 
But  science  knows  nothing  of  any  stage  in  which 
the  universe  could  be  said,  in  other  than  a  met- 
aphorical and  popular  sense,  to  be  formless  or  empty, 
or  in  any  respect  less  the  seat  of  law  and  order 
than  it  is  now.  One  might  as  well  talk  of  a  fresh- 
laid  hen's  egg  being  "  without  form  and  void,"  be- 
cause the  chick  therein  is  potential  and  not  actual,  as 
apply  such  terms  to  the  nebulous  mass  which  con- 
tains a  potential  solar  system. 

Until  some  fui'ther  enlightenment  comes  to  me, 
then,  I  confess  myself  wholly  unable  to  understand 
the  way  in  which  the  nebular  hypothesis  is  to  be  con- 
verted into  an  ally  of  the  "Mosaic  writer."* 


*Ia  looking  through  the  delightful  volume  recently  pub- 
lished by  the  Astronomer  Roj^al  for  Ireland,  a  day  or  two 
ago,  I  find  the  following  remarks  on  the  nebular  hypothesis, 


156  MR.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 

But  Mr.  Gladstone  informs  us  that  Professor  Dana 
and  Professor  Guyot  are  prepared  to  prove  that  the 
"first  or  cosmogonical  portion  of  the  Proem  not  only- 
accords  with,  but  teaches,  the  nebular  hypothesis." 
There  is  no  one  to  whose  authority  on  geological 
questions  I  am  more  readily  disposed  to  bow  than 
that  of  my  eminent  friend  Professor  Dana.  But  I 
am  familiar  with  what  he  has  previously  said  on  this 
tojDic  in  his  well-known  and  standard  work,  into 
which,  strangely  enough,  it  does  not  seem  to  have 
occurred  to  Mr.  Gladstone  to  look  before  he  set  out 
upon  his  present  imdertaking ;  and  unless  Professor 
Dana's  latest  contribution  (which  I  have  not  yet  met 
with)  takes  up  altogether  new  ground,  I  am  afraid  I 
shall  not  be  able  to  extricate  myself,  by  its  help,  from 
my  present  difficulties. 

It  is  a  very  long  time  since  I  began  to  think  about 
the  relations  between  modern  scientifically  ascertained 
truths   and    the   cosmogonical   speculations   of    the 


which  I  should  have  been  glad  to  quote  in  my  text  if  I  had 
known  them  sooner : 

' '  Nor  can  it  be  ever  more  then  a  speculation  ;  it  cannot  be 
established  by  observation,  nor  can  it  be  proved  by  calcula- 
tion. It  is  merely  a  conjecture,  more  or  less  plausible,  but 
perhaps,  in  some  degree,  necessarily  true,  if  our  present  laws 
of  heat,  as  we  understand  them,  admit  of  the  extreme  appli- 
cation here  required,  and  if  the  present  order  of  things  has 
reigned  for  sufficient  time  without  the  intervention  of  any 
influence  at  present  known  to  us"  (The  Story  of  the  Heavens, 
p.  506). 

Would  any  prudent  advocate  base  a  plea,  either  for  or 
against  revelation,  upon  the  coincidence,  or  want  of  coin- 
cidence, of  the  declarations  of  the  latter  with  the  require- 
ments of  a  hypothesis  thus  guardedly  dealt  with  by  an  astro- 
nomical expert? 


ME.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS,  157 

writer  of  Genesis ;  and,  as  I  think  that  Mr.  Gladstone 
might  have  been  able  to  put  his  case  with  a  good  deal 
more  force  if  he  had  thought  it  worth  while  to  con- 
sult the  last  chapter  of  Professor  Dana's  admu-able 
"  Manual  of  Geology,"  so  I  think  he  might  have  been 
made  aware  that  he  was  undertaking  an  enterprise  of 
which  he  had  not  counted  the  cost  if  he  had  chanced 
upon  a  discussion  of  the  subject  which  I  published 
in  1877.* 

Finally,  I  should  like  to  draw  the  attention  of 
those  who  take  interest  in  these  topics  to  the  weighty 
words  of  one  of  the  most  learned  and  moderate  of 
Biblical  critics: 

A  propos  de  cette  premiere  page  de  la  Bible,  on  a  coutume 
de  nos  jours  de  disserter,  a  perte  de  vue,  sur  I'accord  du  recit 
mosaique  avec  les  sciences  naturelles ;  et  comme  celles-ci, 
tout  eloignees  qu'elles  sont  encore  de  la  perfection  absolue, 
ont  rendu  populaires  et  en  quelque  sorte  irrcfragables  un 
certain  nombre  de  faits  genereaux  ou  de  theses  fondamen- 
tales  de  la  cosmologie  et  de  la  geologie,  c'est  le  texte  sacrd 
qu'on  s'^vertue  a  torturer  pour  le  faire  concorder  avec  ces 
donn^es  (Reuss,  L'Histoire  Sainte  et  la  Loi,  i.  275). t 

In  my  paper  on  "  The  Interpreters  of  Genesis  and 


♦Lectures  on  Evolution  delivered  iu  New  York.  (Ameri- 
can Addresses.) 

fTRANSLATiON. — In  reference  to  this  first  page  of  the  Bible, 
it  has  become  now  the  custom  to  discuss  it  copiously  from 
the  wrong  standpoint,  or  at  random,  on  the  agreement  or 
harmony  of  the  Mosaic  record  with  the  natural  sciences ;  and 
as  these,  far  removed  as  they  may  yet  be  from  absolute  per- 
fection, have  undoubtedly  rendered  popular  and  in  a  degree 
irrefutable  a  certain  number  of  general  facts  or  fundamental 
theses  relating  to  cosmology  and  geology,  the  sacred  text  is 
strained  and  twisted  in  order  to  make  it  agree  with  these  ad- 
mitted facts. 


158  MK.    GLADSTONE    AND    GENESIS. 

the  Interpreters  of  Nature,"  while  freely  availing 
myself  of  the  rights  of  a  scientific  critic,  I  endeavored 
to  keep  the  expression  of  my  views  well  within  those 
bounds  of  courtesy  which  are  set  by  self-respect  and 
consideration  for  others.  I  am  therefore  glad  to  be 
favored  with  Mr.  Gladstone's  acknowledgment  of  the 
success  of  my  efforts.  I  only  wish  that  I  could  ac- 
cept all  the  products  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  gracious 
appreciation,  but  there  is  one  about  which,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  honesty,  I  hesitate.  In  fact,  if  I  had  expressed 
my  meaning  better  than  I  seem  to  have  done,  I  doubt 
if  this  particular  proffer  of  IVIi-.  Gladstone's  thanks 
would  have  been  made. 

To  my  mind,  whatever  doctrine  professes  to  be  the 
result  of  the  application  of  the  accepted  rules  of 
inductive  and  deductive  logic  to  its  subject-matter, 
and  accepts,  within  the  limits  which  it  sets  to  itself, 
the  supremacy  of  reason,  is  Science.  Whether  the 
subject-matter  consists  of  realities  or  unrealities, 
truths  or  falsehoods,  is  quite  another  question.  I 
conceive  that  ordinary  geometry  is  science,  by  reason 
of  its  method,  and  I  also  believe  that  its  axioms,  def- 
initions, and  conclusions  are  all  true.  However, 
there  is  a  geometry  of  four"  dimensions,  which  I  also 
beheve  to  be  science,  because  its  method  professes  to 
be  strictly  scientific.  It  is  true  that  I  cannot  con- 
ceive four  dimensions  in  space,  and  therefore,  for  me, 
the  whole  affair  is  unreal.  But  I  have  known  men  of 
great  intellectual  powers  who  seemed  to  have  no  dif- 
gculty  either  in  conceiving  them,  or  at  any  rate  in 
imagining  how  they  could  conceive  them,  and  there- 
fore four-dimensioned  geometry  comes  under  my 
notion  of  science. 

So  I  think  astrology  is  a  science,  in  so  far  as  it  pro- 


MR.    GT.ADSTONE   AND    GENESIS.  159 

fesses  to  reason  logically  from  principles  established 
by  just  inductive  methods.  To  prevent  misunder- 
standing, perhaps  I  had  better  add  that  I  do  not 
believe  one  whit  in  astrology ;  but  no  more  do  I  be- 
lieve in  Ptolemaic  astronomy,  or  in  the  catastrophic 
geology  of  my  youth,  although  these,  in  then*  day, 
claimed — and,  to  my  mind,  rightly  claimed — the  name 
of  science.  If  nothing  is  to  be  called  science  but 
that  which  is  exactly  time  from  beginning  to  end,  I 
am  afraid  there  is  very  little  science  in  the  world  out- 
side mathematics.  Among  the  physical  sciences  I  do 
not  know  that  any  could  claim  more  than  that  each 
is  true  within  certain  limits,  so  narrow  that,  for  the 
present,  at  any  rate,  they  may  be  neglected.  If  such 
is  the  case,  I  do  not  see  where  the  line  is  to  be  dravni 
between  exactly  true,  partially  true,  and  mainly  un- 
true forms  of  science.  And  what  I  have  said  about 
the  current  theology  at  the  end  of  my  paper  leaves,  I 
think,  no  doubt  as  to  the  category  in  which  I  rank  it. 
For  all  that,  I  think  it  would  be  not  only  unjust,  but 
almost  impertinent,  to  refuse  the  name  of  science  to 
the  "  Summa"  of  St.  Thomas  or  to  the  "  Institutes" 
of  Calvin. 

In  conclusion,  I  confess  that  my  supposed  "un- 
jaded  appetite  "  for  the  sort  of  controversy  in  which 
it  needed  not  Mr.  Gladstone's  express  declaration  to 
tell  us  he  is  far  better  practised  than  I  am  (though 
probably,  without  another  express  declai'ation,  no 
one  would  have  suspected  that  his  controversial  fires 
are  burning  low)  is  already  satiated. 

In  "  Elysium  "  we  conduct  scientific  discussions  in 
a  different  medium,  and  we  are  liable  to  threatenings 
of  asphyxia  in  that  "  atmosphere  of  contention "  in 


160  MK.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 

which  ]VIi'.  Gladstone  has  been  able  to  live,  alert  and 
vigorous  beyond  the  common  race  of  men,  as  if  it 
vv^ere  purest  mountain  ah-.  I  trust  that  he  may  long 
contiuue  to  seek  truth,  under  the  difficult  conditions 
he  has  chosen  for  the  search,  with  unabated  energy — 
I  had  almost  said  fire  : 

May  age  not  wither  him,  nor  custom  stale 
His  infinite  variety. 

But  Elysium  suits  my  less  robust  constitution 
better,  and  I  beg  leave  to  retii'e  thither,  not  sorry  for 
my  experience  of  the  other  region — no  one  should 
regret  experience — but  determined  not  to  repeat  it, 
at  any  rate  in  reference  to  the  "plea  for  Revelation." 

T.  H.  Huxley. 


A    PROTEST    AND    A    PLEA. 

BY    MES.    E.    LYNN    LINTON. 

In  the  Nineteenth  Centiiry  of  last  November  Mr. 
Gladstone  publislied  a  remarkable  article,  wbicli  has 
already  received  two  answers.  Professor  Huxley  has 
dealt  with  its  science,  Professor  Max  MuUer  with  its 
mythology  and  etymology  ;  and  even  the  "  Ulysses 
of  dialectics  "  will,  I  think,  find  it  hard  to  reply  to  or 
refute  either  the  one  or  the  other.  This  protest  of 
mine  is  founded  on  a  much  smaller  point,  but  one  on 
which  I  am  entitled  to  speak,  inasmuch  as  Mr.  Glad- 
stone did  me  the  honor  to  allude  to  me  directly  and 
by  quotation,  though  not  by  name. 

The  phrase  to  which  I  object  occurs  in  a  paragraph 
which  expresses  sui-j^rise  "  not  only  at  the  fact,  but 
at  the  manner  in  which  in  this  day,  writers,  whose 
name  is  legion,  unimpeached  in  character  and  abound- 
ing in  talent,  not  only  put  away  from  them,  cast  into 
shadow  or  into  the  very  gulf  of  negation  itself,  the 
conception  of  a  deity,  an  acting  and  ruling  deity.  Of 
this  belief,  which  has  satisfied  the  doubts,  and  wiped 
away  the  tears,  and  found  guidance  for  the  footsteps 
of  so  many  a  weary  wanderer  on  earth,  which  among 
the  best  and  greatest  of  oiu*  race  has  been  so  cher- 
ished by  those  who  had  it,  and  so  longed  and  sought 
for  by  those  who  had  it  not,  we  might  suppose  that 
if  at  length  we  had  discovered  that  it  was  in  the  light 
of  tnith  untenable,  that  the  accumulated  testimony  of 
man  was  worthless,   and  that  his  wisdom  was  but 


162  A    PBOTEST    AND    A    PLEA. 

folly,  yet  at  least  the  decencies  of  moiai-ning  would  be 
vouchsafed  to  this  irreparable  loss.  Instead  of  this, 
it  is  with  a  joy  and  exultation  thai  might  almost  re- 
call the  frantic  orgies  of  the  Commune  that  this,  at 
least  at  first  sight,  terrific  and  overwhelming  calamity 
is  accej^ted  and  recorded  as  a  gain."  (The  itahcs  are 
my  own.) 

The  phrase  is  cruel,  misdii'ecting,  unjust.  As  rev- 
erently as  those  who  believe  that  the  Bible  is  the 
word  of  God— the  ipsissima  verba — and  the  church 
of  Christ  the  sole  ark  of  salvation,  do  we,  who  doubt 
of  both,  worshij)  the  truth  and  stretch  out  our  hands 
to  the  light.  If  we  think  that  such  religions  as  the 
world  has  hitherto  seen  have  been  subjective  and  not 
given  from  without  —  self-generated  and  not  re- 
vealed— it  is  not  because  we  are  indifferent  to  the 
religious  idea,  not  because  we  want  to  get  rid  of  a 
restraining  moral  influence,  nor  yet  because  we  de- 
spise the  consolations  of  faith  and  the  peace  which 
follows  ]3rayer.  It  is  simply  because  certain  things, 
integral  to  those  revelations,  cannot  stand  the  test  of 
scientific  truth,  and  fall  to  pieces  under  the  touch  of 
reason.  And  what  is  this  joy,  this  exultation,  to 
which  Mr.  Gladstone  assigns  so  shameful  a  parallel- 
ism ?  Is  it  in  our  sense  of  freedom,  thi-ough  our 
dehverance  from  the  ciniel  superstitions  which  have 
overwhelmed  brave  men  with  abject  teiTor,  reduced 
feeble  minds  to  imbecility  and  inflamed  ardent  ones 
to  madness — which  have  ruined  the  haj)piness  of 
multitudes,  destroyed  innumerable  lives,  and  put  in- 
struments of  tortiu-e  into  the  hands  of  fanatics  where- 
with to  oppress  their  victims,  till  the  hell  they 
preached  was  translated  to  earth,  and  the  devil  they 
painted  was  embodied  in  then*  own  persons  ?     Must 


A    PROTEST    AND    A    PLEA.  163 

we  bmy  that  devil  witli  tlie  "  decencies  of  moui'ning," 
and  hang  up  wreaths  of  parsley  and-  crowns  of  im- 
mortelles on  the  closed  gates  of  hell"?  Yet  neither 
the  one  nor  the  other  is  to  be  extricated  from  the 
correlative  ideas  of  God  and  heaven  as  given  to  us  by 
the  Bible  and  the  Christian  churches.  What  is  our 
exultation  ?  To  feel  that  we  are  men,  surrounded  by 
unfathomable  mysteries,  but  free  from  the  fears 
which  desolate  and  degrade — to  feel  that  we  can  look 
uj)  to  heaven  above  unabashed  if  questioning — that 
we  are  one  with  the  nature  we  do  not  yet  understand, 
but  part  of  the  whole,  and  not  ruled  off  to  a  special 
destiny  of  eternal  torment — to  have  broken  oui- 
ghastly  idol,  the  Moloch  of  our  sorrow,  bloodstained 
and  tear-bedewed,  and  to  have  enshi'ined  in  its  place 
Infinity  and  Law — this  is  our  joy,  deep,  solemn,  self- 
respecting,  abiding;  and  we  would  that  all  humanity 
shared  it.  But  to  question  the  objective  truth  of 
the  anthropomorphic  religions  accejDted  by  man  as 
revelations,  and  to  have  cast  from  us  the  hideous 
superstitions  bound  up  with  them,  is  not  to  repeat 
the  "  frantic  orgies  of  the  Commune." 

The  theory  of  direct  revelation  creates  a  dilemma 
from  which  I  see  no  escape.  Either  it  is  necessary 
for  the  spiiitual  well-being  of  man  that  truths  taught 
by  God  himself  should  be  known  and  believed,  or  it 
is  not.  If  the  former,  then  we  are  landed  in  the 
mystery  of  Partiality  and  the  Favored  Nation  ;  with 
the  corollary  of  injustice  to  those  excluded  for  no 
fault  of  their  own — by  the  mere  accident  of  then* 
buth  deprived  of  benefits  essential  to  then-  eternal 
happiness.  If  the  latter,  then  it  seems  scarcely  worth 
the  trouble  for  Omnipotence  to  have  delivered  a  mes- 
sage in  the  tremeridous  form  assumed  by  Christians, 


164  A    PROTEST    AND    A    PLEA. 

if  the  fate  of  the  excluded  is  not  touched  thereby, 
and  everything  is  made  pleasant  at  last  for  every  one 
all  round.  If  we  accept  the  theory  of  a  Unified 
Truth  delivered  by  direct  revelation,  we  are  forced 
into  the  position  occupied  by  Roman  Catholics  and 
Mohammedans — that  is,  the  exclusion  of  unbelievers 
from  the  privileges  promised  to  the  faithful — and  the 
consequent  injustice  of  the  divine  being,  who  favors 
some  and  disinherits  others,  irrespective  of  personal 
merits  and  for  motives  of  pure  cajmce. 

Better  than  a  divine  soui'ce  seems  to  me  the  purely 
human  origin  of  this  belief  in  a  specialized  and  par- 
tial revelation,  and  how  it  is  the  translation  into 
rehgion  of  that  passionate  patriotism  which  makes  its 
own  tribe,  race,  nation,  the  finest  in  the  world,  the 
preservation  and  supremacy  of  which  is  of  the  first 
importance.  It  is  no  other  than  the  egotism  which 
is  necessary  for  self-preservation,  but  which  cannot 
bear  the  test  of  reason  exterior  to  itself.  Standing 
apart  from  all,  and  impartial  to  all,  we  can  judge  bet- 
ter than  when  we  are  face  to  face  with  one  alone.  And 
standing  apart,  judging  for  the  whole  human  race 
and  on  the  broad  grounds  of  equal  justice,  we  see 
how  infinitely  unjust  would  be  any  partial  revela- 
tion— any  creation  of  a  favored  nation  which  should 
exclude  from  participation  in  its  benefits  the  innocent 
disinherited.  If  we  find  joy,  too,  in  this  dehverance 
from  the  injustice  involved  in  partial,  local,  and  racial 
revelations — revelations  made  to  some  and  withheld 
from  others — it  is  because  we  open  the  doors  of  truth 
to  all  humanity  alike — making  it  general  and  not 
special — because  we  think  our  spiritual  democracy  a 
nobler  thing  than  the  creation  of  an  aristocracy 
among  souls,  where  inherited  belief  in  Christ,  Mo- 


A    PROTEST    AND    A    PLEA.  165 

hammed,  Jehovah,  or  Vishnti  confers  celestial  rank 
and  eternal  privileges,  denied  to  the  excluded.  But 
to  see  only  the  mind  of  man  in  concrete  religious  sys- 
tems is  not  to  deny  nor  to  despise  the  religious 
idea — the  instinct  of  reverence  for  the  Highest 
Ideal — the  worship  which  is  insj)ired  by  the  sense  of 
Infinity — the  confession  of  that  Soinething  beyond 
oui'selves  and  our  knowledge,  which  some  men  call 
God,  and  others  the  Unknowable,  and  others,  again, 
the  Law  of  Righteousness  by  which  we  are  gov- 
erned and  to  which  we  strive  to  attain. 

The  very  fact  that  there  are  more  religions  than 
one  in  the  world,  and  that  each  consoles  and  sustains 
its  worshiper,  surely  of  itself  proves  the  subjective 
quality  of  creeds.  Who  can  deny  the  power  which 
belief  in  the  gods  of  Olympus  had  on  men  ?  When 
wild  thoughts  and  tumultuous  desires  disturbed  the 
Greek  girl's  heart,  did  she  derive  no  calming  spiritual 
influence  when  she  fled  to  the  altar  of  Artemis  and 
laid  her  offerings  before  the  goddess,  beseeching  her 
divine  support  ?  Where  was  the  difference  between 
her  prayer  and  that  of  her  younger  sister  who  kneels 
before  the  shrine  of  the  Vii-gin  to-day,  or  turns  in 
fear  of  herself  to  her  patron  saint,  her  guardian 
angel,  asking  each  to  defend  her  from  sinful  thoughts  ? 
Was  the  story  of  Actseon,  slain  for  his  j)resumptuous 
intrusion  on  divine  privacy,  less  real  to  the  Greek 
than  is  to  the  Jew  that '  of  the  fifty  thousand  and 
three  score  and  ten  men  of  Beth-shemesh,  smitten  be- 
cause they  had  looked  into  the  Ark  of  the  Lord  1 
AYhen  women,  in  their  hour  of  trial,  cried  out  to 
Lucina,  was  it  with  a  different  feehng  from  that 
which  makes  the  Sicilian  invoke  the  aid  of  la  IVIadonna 
della   Catena?     Was   the   mystery  of   the   birth   of 


166  A    PROTEST   AND    A    PLEA. 

Dionysos  more  incredible  than  that  of  the  Miraculous 
Conception,  or  the  avatar  of  Crishna?  Like  our  own 
Divine  Triad,  unseen  by  excess  of  light,  hidden  be- 
hind the  clouds,  veiled  ia  the  summer  sunshine, 
heard  in  the  tempest,  and  present  in  the  darkness  of 
the  night,  ever  unseen  but  ever  there,  the  gods  of 
OlymjJus  di'ew  in  council  together  and  watched  over 
the  affairs  of  the  men  they  had  made.  And  the  pious 
believed  what  they  did  not  see,  and  worshij)ed  by 
faith,  not  knowledge.  When  some  bold  skeptic  de- 
nying possibility,  or  ardent  believer  seeking  to  realize 
his  faith,  climbed  to  the  top  of  the  Sacred  Hill^ 
searching  for  proof,  what  did  he  find?  Was  therts 
but  one  feather  of  eagle  or  of  dove,  of  peacock  or  of 
owl,  to  attest  the  truth  of  the  greater  by  the  evidence 
of  the  less  ? — one  solitary  stain  of  the  old  gray  stone, 
swejit  by  the  wind  and  bleached  by  the  snow,  which 
showed  where  the  nectar  had  fallen  from  Hebe's  cup 
or  Ganymede's  unjDracticed  hand'? — one  spangle  of 
gold  from  the  ghdle  worn  by  the  "  Most  Beautiful?" 
Was  there  one  smallest  material  proof  of  the  existence 
of  those  Divine  Twelve,  to  whom  so  many  temples 
had  been  raised,  so  many  prayers  addressed  ?  Do 
we  believe  their  objective  existence  now?  and  have 
we  buried  them  with  the  "  decencies  of  mourning  ?  " 
WTaat  to  us  is  that  vision  of  Athene  which  iaspii'ed 
the  artist  and  cheered  the  faint  and  feeble  ? — what  the 
worth  of  those  processions  and  prayers,  those  offer- 
ings and  sacrifices,  which  then  were  held  all-powerful 
to  avert  war  or  secure  victory,  to  give  good  crops  to 
the  land  and  bring  divine  favor  to  the  devout  ?  What 
to  us  are  those  divine  advocacies  or  enmities  in  which 
Achaian  and  Trojan  so  implicitly  trusted  ?  Do  we 
believe   in  the  visit  of  Jove  and  Mercury  to  Baucis 


A    PROTEST    AND    A    PLEA.  167 

and  Philemon — even  those  of  us  who  accept  as  divine 
the  stories  in  the  Bible  of  how  God  and  his  angels 
came  down  to  visit  Adam  and  Eye,  Abram  and  Sai'a, 
Moses  and  Mary  ?  Where  are  the  satyrs  who  fright- 
ened the  nymphs  in  the  woods,  and  the  fauns  who 
linked  the  human  with  the  brute  "?  Where  are  the 
rude  gods  of  the  river,  fathers  of  men  1 — the  Eumen- 
ides  and  Ate,  Styx  and  Cerberus  ?  Do  we  not  now 
confess  their  phantasmal,  subjective,  self-generated 
existence  ?  Do  we  not  say  :  "  These  things  never 
were,  but  were  only  thought  to  bo  1 "  Yet  one  of  the 
charges  which  cost  Socrates  his  life  was  that  he  de- 
spised the  tutelary  deities  of  the  state,  2^  utting  in 
their  place  another  divinity;  which  was  as  if  a 
medieval  Spaniard  should  have  denied  the  actual 
appearance  of  Saint  Jago  at  the  battle  of  Clavijo;  or 
his  brother  monks  have  questioned  the  holy  visitation 
to  Fra  Angelico ;  or  as  when  some  modern  thiaker 
stands  apart  from  the  anthropomorphism  of  the  Chris- 
tian creed,  doubts  dii'ect  revelation,  and  questions 
the  divine  authorship  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
in  favor  of  unchangeable  law  and  progressive  im- 
provement in  knowledge,  brain-power,  and  cosmic 
concej)tions. 

Admit  the  theory  of  an  Omnipotent  Artificer  out- 
side Law — of  an  Author  of  Creation  who  could  have 
made  all  things  diflerently  if  he  would — and  we  are 
caught  in  a  network  of  contradictions  from  which 
there  is  no  possibility  of  freeing  oiu'selves.  Where 
do  we  find  the  benevolence  of  that  acting  and  ruling 
deity,  belief  in  whom  has,  truly  enough,  "  satisfied 
the  doubts,  wiped  away  the  tears,  and  found  guidance 
for  the  footsteps  of  so  many  a  weary  wanderer  on 
the  earth  ?  "     Not  in  nature,  of  which  man  is  but  one 


168  A    PROTEST    AND    A    PLEA. 

manifestation  among  the  countless  millions.  All 
thi'ougli  nature  we  find  pain  and  strife  and  death  as 
the  charter  of  existence.  The  weak  are  the  prey  of 
the  stiong,  and  life  must  incessantly  be  sacrificed 
that  life  may  continue  to  exist.  We  make  great 
account  of  our  own  jDains,  and  put  uj)  prayers  in 
churches  when  certain  microscopic  organisms  have 
taken  possession  of  us,  and  are  rapidly  destroying 
our  vitality;  but  who  prays  Omnipotence  for  the 
small  crab  held  down  by  the  big  one,  and  slowly 
picked  to  death  by  those  ruthless  pincers  tearing 
fragment  after  fragment  from  the  quivering  flesh  be- 
neath the  shell  ?  What  feebler-winged  creatiu'e 
invokes  supernatural  aid  against  the  terrible  dragon- 
fly, the  murderous  wasp,  bearing  down  on  it  for 
destruction  ?  Look  at  the  spider,  the  vulture,  the 
tiger,  the  cannibal,  and  the  tj^rant  among  men.  Are 
they  not  all  parts  of  one  great  whole — integral  to 
creation  as  it  is — different  manifestations  of  the  same 
law  ?  But  if  not  the  result  of  law,  working  inexor- 
ably and  automatically  from  its  own  center,  then  are 
they  the  deliberate  work  of  an  independent  creator, 
who  might  have  done  differently  and  more  mercifully 
if  he  would.  In  which  theory  lies  the  most  reasona- 
bleness and  the  most  humility  ? — in  that  which  con- 
fesses ignorance  of  the  causa  causans,  or  in  that 
which  creates  unanswerable  contradictions  becavise  of 
its  declaration  of  knowledge,  and  its  ascription  of 
pain,  misery,  and  death  to  the  will  of  a  beneficent 
deity  and  an  omnipotent  and  all- wise  father  ? 

If  there  be  any  truth  in  science  at  all,  and  astron- 
omy, geology,  chemistry,  biology  are  not  so  many 
delusions  of  the  senses,  there  was  a  time  when  our 
ancestor — whom,  for  want  of  a  better  term,  we  call 


A    PKOTEST    AND    A    PLEA.  169 

Primitive  Man — was  removed  from  the  brute  only  in- 
somuch as  he  had  a  more  erect  carriage,  a  Httle  bigger 
brain,  and  more  comj)letely  differentiated  members. 
Of  religion,  morality,  decency,  pity,  social  law,  patriot- 
ism, he  understood  no  more  than  the  ape,  his 
brother.  He  was  as  much  outside  the  pale  of  the 
moral  law  as  the  spider  or  the  vulture.  In  his  mur- 
ders, his  cannibalism,  his  bestialities  was  no  sin,  be- 
cause there  was  no  knowledge.  He  was  simply  a 
brute,  inclosing  in  himself  potentialities  of  future  de- 
velopment. The  product  of  the  law  of  evolution,  he 
had  within  him  the  power  of  evolution.  By  slow 
degrees  his  brain  grew  and  his  thoughts  ripened.  He 
learnt  the  value  of  fixed  laws  for  government,  and 
the  consequent  need  of  obedience,  with  punishment 
for  infraction.  He  developed  a  conscience,  and  he 
developed  morality ;  and  among  his  moral  qualities 
he  developed  pity  for  suffering.  Fear  of  the  joitiless 
elements,  of  the  ferocity  of  wild  beasts,  ignorance  of 
causes  and  consequent  fear  of  results,  together  with 
di'eams,  sickness  and  death,  had  already  created  an 
Elemental  God.  When  the  social  conscience  was 
born,  the  creation  of  a  Moral  God,  the  pitiful  helper 
of  man,  followed  as  of  necessity — by  the  same  law  as 
that  which  created  the  elemental  deity,  and  made  vis- 
ible fetishes  of  stones  and  trees,  prefacing  the  graven 
images  and  j)ainted  idols.  Imperfect  social  conditions 
necessitated  a  Court  of  Ultimate  Appeal.  The  man 
oppressed  here  by  his  stronger  superior,  and  helpless 
in  a  state  of  society  where  might  was  right  and  law 
was  not  justice,  needed  some  one  to  redress  his 
wrongs — if  not  now  nor  here,  yet  in  the  future — the 
beyond.  The  tyranny  of  the  potent  kings  must  be  pun- 
ished by  the  wrath  of  the  one  omnipotent ;  the  suffer- 


170  A    PROTEST    AND    A    PLEA. 

ings.  of  the  innocent  and  helpless  must  be  avenged 
by  the  eternal  ruler  who  holds  the  scales  and  metes 
out  justice.  But  our  God  was,  and  is,  the  transcript 
of  our  social  condition — the  measure  of  our  knowl- 
edge. The  social  and  personal  wrongs  of  which  we 
make  so  much  account  are  but  the  translation  into 
human  action  of  the  material  sufferings  pervading  all 
animate  creation.  Why  must  a  man  be  eternally  com- 
pensated for  a  cruel  and  untimely  death,  or  for  the 
loss  of  his  worldly  goods  and  gear,  while  the  worm, 
pulled  asunder  by  two  blackbu-ds  or  slowly  devoured 
by  flies — which  tried  Frederick  Robertson's  faith  so 
sharply — the  smaller  lobster,  which  is  ejected  from 
its  safe  hiding-jjlace  among  the  rocks  and  thi-own  out 
into  the  waste  of  the  Sea  to  perish  by  its  enemies,  is 
but  fulfilling  its  appointed  destiny,  without  which  life 
would  not  exist  at  all  1  This  necessity  for  a  Court  of 
Ultimate  Appeal  and  a  righteous  Judge  who  shall 
compensate  those  who  have  been  afliicted  here,  while 
j)unishing  the  oppressors,  seems  to  me  no  more  a 
necessity  when  life  is  over  than  compensation  for  the 
worm  or  the  lobster.  Each  is  the  same  thing,  differ- 
entiated by  ch'cumstances  and  conditions — the  homo- 
geneity of  nature  and  the  invariability  of  the  universal 
law  being  surely  among  the  first  lessons  to  be  learned 
by  those  who  dare  to  think. 

Better  and  truer  than  the  individual  consolations 
of  eternity  are  the  general  ameliorations  wrought  in 
time.  By  the  law  of  evolution  which  rules  society — 
the  expression  of  man's  mind — just  as  it  rules  the 
translation  of  organisms,  wrong  and  injustice  create 
better  laws  when  the  human  brain  has  advanced  to 
the  point  when  it  can  understand  that  injustice  and 
shape  a  nobler  ideal.     The  world,  which  in  its  bar- 


A   PROTEST   AND   A   PLEA.  171 

barous  nonage  prostrates  itself  at  the  feet  of  crowned 
robbers  covetous  of  their  neighbors'  vineyards — of 
royal  murderers  setting  obstructive  husbands  in  the 
front  of  the  battle  that  the  wives  may  be  possessed 
in  peace — in  its  manhood  sees  the  greater  good  of 
equal  justice  to  all,  and  preaches  the  nobler  law  of 
rights  and  duties  as  against  that  of  submission  and 
privileges.  The  specialized  inheritance  of  the  few 
enlarges  itself  into  the  generous  democracy  of  Christ, 
which  swept  down  the  barriers  of  the  court  and  rent 
the  veil  of  the  temple.  The  Favored  Nation  was 
called  on  to  share ;  the  aristocrats  of  heaven  had  to 
enlarge  their  borders,  and  the  Elect  to  add  new 
thi'ones  to  their  number.  But  as  presbyter,  once  a 
hberal  protest,  grew  to  be  only  "old  priest  writ 
large,"  so  Christianity,  which  was  in  the  beginning 
as  wide  as  humanity,  by  the  law  of  consolidation  and 
contraction  working  in  things  spiritual  as  well  as 
material,  has  become  as  close  a  guild  and  as  exclusive 
a  sect  as  the  Judaism  it  was  pledged  to  displace.  By 
the  dogma  of  a  Unified  Truth,  of  a  divine  and  direct 
revelation,  giving  privileges  to  those  who  believe  and 
entailing  loss  on  those  who  are  excluded,  the  Savior, 
whose  salvation  was  in  his  universality,  has  been  nar- 
rowed into  a  sectarian  deity,  like  Jehovah,  like  Allah, 
like  Vishntl.  It  is  the  Agnostic  who  now  takes  up 
this  lapsed  creed  of  universality — who  preaches 
afresh  the  democracy  of  souls — who,  in  his  belief  that 
the  religious  idea  is  one  to  be  improved  and  finally 
perfected  by  evolution  and  knowledge,  sees  the  true 
salvation  of  men  and  their  final  redemption  fi'om 
error.  In  this  belief  lie  his  hope  for  the  futiu^e  and 
his  patience  with  the  present.  He  trusts  to  time  to 
carry  on  the  work  of  mental  enlargement,  as  it  has 


172  A    PROTEST    AND    A    PLEA. 

already,  together  with  that  of  physical  improvement; 
he  trusts  to  science  to  give  us  increase  of  veritable 
knowledge — and  he  knows  that  his  trust  is  not  in 
vain. 

All  bitterness  and  reproach,  all  persecution  and 
scorn,  are  among  the  things  dead  and  done  with  to 
the  Agnostic.  As  little  as  he  would  ciu'se  the  ele- 
ments which  wrecked  his  house  and  ruined  his  land 
would  he  curse — though  he  would  prevent — the  spir- 
itual cruelties  of  his  brother,  acting  according  to  the 
law  of  an  uneducated  mind,  a  brutish  nature,  and 
walking  by  the  dim  light  of  that  davvn  which  is  not 
yet  morning.  He  knows  that  humanity  must  fulfil 
the  universal  law,  and  from  low,  amorphous  begin- 
nings reach  up  to  moral  nobleness  and  spiritual 
beauty.  He  knows  that  all  society  is  experimental, 
all  laws  are  tentative ;  that  the  stream  of  tendency 
does  indeed  make  for  righteousness,  with  many  wind- 
ings and  much  doubling  back  on  its  way,  but  always 
flowing  onward  from  the  darkness  to  the  light — from 
the  narrow  rock  in  the  mountain  to  the  broad  and  in- 
finite sea.  In  the  abhorrence  which  good  men  feel 
for  crime  he  sees  the  ultimate  destruction  of  crime ; 
in  the  great  Man-God  which  forms  the  ideal  of  all 
religions  he  sees  the  projection  of  humanity  itself  on 
the  screen  of  the  future  ;  in  the  fact  that  this  human- 
ity has  ever  touched  the  level  of  Moses,  Buddha, 
Christ,  he  sees  the  possibilities  of  the  whole  race. 
He  knows  and  humbly  confesses  the  great  wall  of  the 
Unknown  between  him  and  the  Ultimate  Verity. 
But  in  measuring  where  he  stands  now  from  that 
brutish  Primitive  who  was  his  ancestor,  he  sees  no 
limit  to  fvu'ther  infinite  advance.  He  sees  no  limit 
save  that  of  the  individual.     Every  man  must  be  born 


A    PROTEST    AND    A    PLEA.  173 

helpless,  and  if  he  lives  to  the  end  of  his  tether  he 
must  die  decayed,  carrying  his  .experiences  with  him. 
All  the  same  the  race  survives. 

Let  it  be  so.  The  individual  is  nothing.  He  is  no 
more  than  the  diatom,  the  bit  of  protoplasm  which 
helps  to  make  a  geological  stratum  and  a  biological 
world.  From  the  individual  as  he  is  now — striving 
after  righteousness,  suffering  for  truth,  offering  him- 
self as  a  fragment  in  the  great  stepping-stone — will 
come  the  race  which  shall  some  day  be  as  gods, 
knowing  good  and  evil.  The  storms  of  the  present 
may  wither  the  vines  and  blight  the  fig-trees,  but  the 
roots  remain  ;  and  it  is  better  to  be  among  the  eternal 
roots  of  Yggdrasil,  barren  of  beauty  for  ourselves, 
but  helping  in  the  life  and  solace  of  others,  than  to 
be  one  of  the  fairest  of  the  annuals — things  born  of 
the  day  and  perishing  with  the  day,  leaving  nothing 
permanent  nor  solid  behind.  Ah!  better  than  all 
personal  gain  of  riches  or  of  love,  which  perish  with 
our  lives,  is  that  immortality  of  influence  found  in 
the  example  of  those  who  have  done  a  noble  deed  or 
spoken  a  brave  truth  !  Worst  of  all  the  eiTors,  most 
deadly  of  all  the  irreligious  denials,  is  that  egotistic 
preference  of  individual  gain  over  the  general  well- 
being.  Not  against  those  who  doubt  the  divine  per- 
sonality they  cannot  see — who  question  the  fatherly 
care  and  beneficence  of  an  omnipotent  artificer  who 
has  made  sorrow,  suffering  disease,  and  death  neces- 
sities of  existence — but  against  the  egotists  who 
make  the  unit  of  more  importance  than  the  whole 
should  such  men  as  Mi'.  Gladstone  turn  their  arms. 
Speculative  opinions  are  incapable  of  proof,  but  moral 
heroism  is  a  certain  quantity  ;  and  the  belief  in  and 
practice  of  Altruism  are  essentially  parts  of  that  code 


174  A    PROTEST   AND    A    PLEA. 

•which,  has  to  come  to  the  front  in  the  future.  Once 
men  did  not  see  the  higher  ideal  contained  in  the 
spu'ituahzed  Lord  whom  Paul  preached,  over  the 
deities  whom  Ovid  vulgarized.  They  preferred  their 
joyous  hymns  and  picturesque  processions  to  the 
colder,  more  sublime,  less  tangible  worship  of  the 
"  pale  Galilean,"  belief  in  whom  included  the  socialism 
of  general  poverty  for  this  world  and  the  hope  of 
happiness  transferred  from  life  here  to  life  after 
death.  "What  was  it  to  the  joyous  Greek,  to  the 
strong  and  sensual  Roman,  to  whom  Hades  was  but 
a  world  of  shadows,  to  be  told  to  give  up  all  here — 
all  that  was  lovable,  pleasurable,  tangible — for  the 
hypothetical  joys  of  heaven?  Did  he  not  say:  "I 
will  take  when  I  can  and  hold  by  what  I  know?  "  just 
as  those  to  whom  Altruism  is  unwelcome  because  of 
its  destruction  of  egotism  say:  "  What  to  me  is  the 
race  ?  I  suffer — I  love — I  desu'e  ;  what  do  I  care  for 
the  rest  ?  "  But  it  has  to  come.  The  nobler  life  is 
inevitable ;  and  the  day  when  Duty  shall  overcome 
Pleasure,  and  Altruism  be  stronger  than  Individ- 
ualism, is  as  certain  in  the  future  as  is  the  calculation 
of  an  eclipse  or  a  new  discovery  in  chemistry. 

The  loss  out  of  his  life  of  a  personal  deity  does  not 
dismay  the  Agnostic,  and  the  destruction  of  his  be- 
lief in  direct  revelation  has  not  left  him  desolate.  As 
a  brave  man  knows  how  to  die  and  pass  into  the 
darkness  of  the  grave  with  calmness  and  dignity,  so 
a  brave  soul  knows  how  to  live  by  the  light  of  an 
educated  conscience  only — that  conscience  being  the 
result  of  gradual  develojpment,  as  much  as  is  the 
sense  of  justice  and  the  consciousness  of  shame.  He 
waits  for  the  time  when  better  knowledge  shall  enable 
men  to  reconcile  the  mystery  of  the  material  cruelty 


A    PROTEST   AND    A    PLEA.  175 

of  nature  witli  the  pity,  the  justice,  the  moral  sense, 
which  are  the  active  and  substantive  possessions  of 
man  only — who,  after  all,  is  only  matter  conscious 
of  itself  to  the  highest  degree  yet  attained.  He  does 
not  know  why  the  House  of  Life  should  be  thus  di- 
vided against  itself,  nor  why  he,  who  is  only  a  higher 
translation  of  the  Force  which  expresses  itself  in  the 
worm  and  the  crab,  should  feel  pity  when  he  sees  the 
one  pulled  asunder  by  two  blackbirds — a  sickening 
kind  of  indignation  when  the  living  flesh  of  the  other 
is  being  slowly  picked  out  by  the  pincers  of  the 
stronger.  One  with  natui'e,  and  the  product  of 
material  things,  his  revulsion  from  the  cii'cumstances 
of  his  origin  is  not  to  be  explained  by  the  theory  of 
a  moral  sense — that  something  extra  added  by  the 
God  who  has  originated  these  cu-cumstances.  This 
would  be  to  make  the  creator  ashamed  of  his  own 
creation,  and  to  make  man  his  judge  and  assessor. 
It  is  a  mystery ;  and  the  greatest  of  the  many  by 
which  we  are  suiToimded.  Why  matter,  fully  con- 
scious of  itself  in  the  mind  of  man,  should  find  the 
inevitable  law,  the  unalterable  conditions  of  life, 
cruel,  and  should  do  what  it  can  to  ameliorate  them, 
is  an  enigma  not  to  be  explained  away  by  the  story  of 
Adam  and  Eve — a  talking  snake  standing  erect — a 
God  who  walked  in  the  garden  in  the  cool  of  the 
evening — a  Forbidden  Tree  and  a  Tree  of  Life — or 
any  other  of  the  mythological  circumstances  to  which 
the  orthodox  pin  their  faith,  finding  them  sufficient 
for  theii"  peace. 

Let  us  go  out  into  the  open  and  judge  for  our- 
selves. Let  us  climb  to  the  top  of  Mount  Olympus, 
of  Ararat,  of  Meru ;  let  us  lift  up  the  lid  of  the  Ai'k 
of  the  Covenant,  enter  the  Sepulcher,  touch  the  stone 


176  A    PROTEST    AND    A    PLEA. 

at  Mecca,  feel  the  wheels  of  the  car  of  Juggernaut, 
and  test  what  we  find  by  the  aid  of  reason  and  such 
science  as  we  possess.  If  we  find  there  things  which 
vanish  as  we  look — things  vaporous  as  clouds  that 
cannot  be  held — unstable  as  the  river  mist  which  can- 
not be  compelled — can  we  still  believe  in  the  objective 
existence  of  the  faiths  bound  up  with  these  things  ? 
Or  shall  we  not  rather  say  they  are  all  of  the  same 
order — prophet  and  pythoness,  angel  and  demigod, 
Madonna  and  Hera,  Crishna  and  Christ,  Jehovah  and 
Zeus — they  are  all  names,  not  persons,  and  all  repre- 
sent analogous  conditions  of  brain  differentiated  by 
climate  and  the  tendencies  of  the  race?  Beyond 
them  all  lies  the  boundless  and  imj)ersonal  Infinite — 
the  grandeur  of  impartial  law — the  prizes  to  be  won 
from  the  depths  of  the  as  yet  unknown — and  the 
one  concrete  imperishable  essence  of  all  religion — 
our  duty  to  our  fellow-men,  and  our  duty  in  self- 
respect  to  ourselves. 

Always  the  popular  faith  has  been  the  last  word, 
the  supreme  revelation,  to  those  who  believe;  and 
always  the  first  doubters — the  Uhlans  preceding  the 
army  of  destroyers  and  subsequent  reconstructors — 
have  been  made  martyrs  to  their  negation.  To  be 
said  to  doubt  the  tutelar  deities  of  the  city  cost 
Socrates  his  life — ^Socrates,  who,  before  all  men,  taught 
reverence  and  preached  vii'tue.  To  deny  that  Jesus, 
the  Son  of  Mary,  was  God  Incarnate  has  cost  many 
hundreds  of  hves.  To  question  the  divine  mission 
of  Mohammed  has  been  as  fatal  to  thousands  as  was 
the  denial  of  the  supremacy  of  Jehovah  to  the  priests 
of  Baal.  The  world  reveres  its  idols,  and  looks  neither 
to  the  fashion  of  their  make  nor  to  the  passions  they 
typify.     Jealous  or  cruel,  punishing  the  children  for 


A    PKOTEST    AND    A    PLEA.  177 

the  father's  sin  or  demanding  the  sacrifice  of  the  in- 
nocent for  the  redemption  of  the  guilty — these  idols 
are  precious  beyond  all  else,  and  theii*  worship  is 
held  as  dear  as  life  itself.  And  ever  the  deniers  of 
their  divinity  have  been  accused  of  preaching  the 
wildest  immorality  as  well  as  the  most  godless  irre- 
ligion,  and  of  desning  to  break  all  the  wholesome 
restraints  which  keep  men  from  crime  and  vice  and 
force  them  to  obey  the  moral  law.  "The  frantic 
orgies  of  the  Commune ! "  Yes,  that  is  the  modern 
name  for  the  old  stone.  It  is  always  the  same  stone, 
renamed  according  to  cii'cumstances.  But  by  and  by 
the  world  comes  up  to  these  pioneers.  Then  it 
ceases  to  revile,  and  takes  then-  place,  crying  out: 
"  We  knew  all  this  before ;  you  are  telling  us  no  new 
thing." 

There  is  no  more  sin  in  questioning  the  objective 
truth  of  religious  systems  than  there  is  in  verifying  a 
scientific  position.  We  seek  the  truth,  and  the  fact 
of  this  seeking  is  the  proof  that  we  have  not  yet 
found.  "Judicial  blindness"  is  the  phrase  of  cer- 
tainty so  far  as  the  individual  is  concerned.  But  his 
realization  does  nothing  for  another ;  on  the  contrary, 
that  one  man  realizes  one  thing  and  his  brother  an- 
other incontestably  proves  the  subjective  quahty  of 
each  creed.  The  cry  of  the  human  heart  is  yet 
unanswered,  and  the  reconciling  medium  between 
man's  moral  sense  and  the  natural  law  is  yet  to  seek. 
The  world  stands  with  parched  lips,  waiting  for  this 
dew  of  Hermon  by  which  its  thirst  will  be  slaked; 
and  till  we  can  reconcile  these  two  opposing  mani^ 
festations  of  the  ,3ame  Force  it  must  remain  unsatis- 
fied. The  solution  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  doctrine 
of  Original  Perfection,  the  Fall,  and  the  consequent 


178  A    PKOTEST    AND    A    PLEA. 

sufferings  of  all  life  for  the  childisli  disobedience  of 
one  man.  Meanwhile,  we  who  beheve  in  the  futm-e 
of  humanity  by  the  law  of  progress  wait,  hoping  and 
of  good  heart.  Schools  are  our  temples ;  science  is 
our  ritual ;  time  is  our  heaven ;  the  human  race  con- 
tains our  future  gods ;  and  the  Satan  w^e  have  to 
conquer  and  to  chain  is  that  arid  Egotism  which  de- 
spises for  the  race  what  it  cannot  enjoy  in  its  own 
person,  and  cares  more  for  the  salvation  of  its  own 
individuahty  than  it  does  for  the  redemption  of  the 
world.  If  in  this  creed  can  be  found  any  analogy  to 
the  frantic  orgies  of  the  Commune,  I  for  one  am  con- 
tent to  stand  in  the  pillory,  and  let  Mr.  Gladstone 
and  his  co-rehgionists  pelt  me  at  theii*  pleasure. 

E.  Lynn  Linton. 


THE  TRUTH  SEEKER  COMPANY'S 
LIST  OF  PUBLICATIONS. 

ING2.UDINO  C.  P.  SOICBRBT'S  PUBLICATIONS. 

33  Clinton  Place,         -         -       New^  York 

[Look  through  whole  List — not  continuously  alphabetized.  ] 


THE  TRUTH  SEEKER  LIBRARY. 


The  World's  Sages,  Thinkers,  and  Reformers.    The 

BiograjDhies  of  three  hundred  of  the  most  distinguished 
teachers  and  philosophers  (who  were  not  Christians),  from 
the  time  of  Menu  to  the  present.  By  D.  M.  Bennett.  1,075 
pages,  8vo.  Cloth,  $3.00;  leather,  $4.00;  morocco,  gilt  edges, 
$4.50. 

The  Champions  of  the  Church;  Their  Crimes  and 
Persecutions.  Biographical  sketches  of  prominent 
Christians.  A  companion  book  to  "The  World's  Sages,"  etc. 
By  D.  M.  Bennett.  8vo.  1,119  pages.  Cloth,  $3.00;  leather, 
$4.00;  morocco,  gilt  edges,  $4.50. 

The  Gods  and  Religions  of  Ancient  and  Modern 
Times.  Vol.  I.  gives  a  ftill  account  of  all  the  gods 
the  nations  of  the  earth  have  worshiped,  including  Jehovah, 
Satan,  The  Holy  Gliost,  Jesus  Christ,  Virgin  Mary,  and  the 
Bible.  835  pages,  8vo.  Vol.  11.  describes  fully  all  the  re- 
ligious systems  of  the  world,  including  Judaism,  Moham- 
medanism, and  Christianity;  the  latter  occupying  372  pages, 
going  fully  into  its  merits.  949  pages.  By  D.  M.  Bennett. 
Written  in  prison  at  Albany.  In  cloth,  $3.00  per  volume, 
or  $5.00  for  the  two  voJ'vmes;  in  leather,  $7.00;  in  morocco 
gilt  edges,  $8.00. 

Supernatural  Religion.  An  inquirj^  into  the  reahty  of 
divine  revelation.  Decidedly  the  most  thorough  and  exhaust- 
ive work  on  the  claims  of  supernaturalism  ever  written.  By 
F.  W.  Newman,  Emeritus  Professor  of  the  London  University. 
1,115  pages,  8vo.  In  cloth,  $4,00;  leather,  $5,00;  morocco, 
gilt  edges,  $5.50. 

-The  Great  Works  of  Thomas  Paine.    Including  The 

Age  of  Reason,  Examination  of  Prophecies,  Reply  to  Bishop 
of  Llandaff,  Letter'  to  Mr.  Erskine,  Essay  on  Dreams,  Lettei 
to  Camille  Jordan,  The  Religion  of  Deism,  Common  Sense, 
The  Crisis,  and  The  Rignts  of  Man;  the  whole  preceded  by 
the  Life  of  Paine,  and  a  steel-plate  portrait.  800  pages,  8vo. 
Cloth,  $3.00;  leather,  $4.00;  morocco,  gilt  edges,  $4.50. 


i  TRUTH  SEEKER  CO:S  PUBLICATION'S. 

Analysis  of  Religious  Belief.    An  examination  of  tlie 

Creeds,  Rites,  and  Sacred  Writings  of  the  world.  By  Viscount 
Ambeklet,  son  of  the  late  Lord  John  llussell,  twice  Premier 
of  England.  Comi^lete  from  the  London  edition.  745  pages, 
8vo.  In  cloth,  $3.00;  leather,  $4.00;  morocco,  gilt  edges, 
$4.50. 

The  foregoing  volumes  are  called  "The  Truth  Seeker 
Library."  If  all  are  ordered  together  and  sent  by  express, 
one  dollar  will  be  deducted  from  the  price  of  each. 


D.    M.    BENNETT'S   ^VORKS. 

A.  Truth  Seeker  Around  the  World.    Four  large  vol- 
umes.    With  a  steel  plate  engraving  of  the  aiithor  in  Vol.  I. 
and  each  volume  illustrated  with  forty-seven  cuts.     By  D.  M. 
Bennett.     Late  editor  of  The  Truth  Seekee,  author  of  "A 
Truth  Seeker  in  Europe,"  "  Gods  and  Religions  of  Ancient  and 
Modern  Times,  "The  World's  Sages,  Thinkers,  and  Reform- 
ers," "Champions  of  the  Church,"  etc.,    etc.      Handsomely 
bound  in  red  cloth,  $6.50;  in  leather,  red  edges,  $9.50;  in  mo- 
rocco, gilt  edges,  $10.50. 
Readers  of  The  Truth  Seeker  know  the  circumstances  under  wliiola  tUis 
work,  was  written.    Tlio  last  words  penned  by  the  great  author  were  for  the 
fourth  volume,  which  was  nearly  completed  at  his  death,  amJ  which  contains 
Hii  account  of  his  world-lamented  death  and  burial.    Me.  Bennett  was  a 
very  patient  and  faithful  chronicler  of  the  habits  and  customs  of  the  differ- 
ent peoples  of  the  many  places  he  visited.    The  every-day  life  of  all    na- 
tions is  laid  before  the  reader  by  one  who  has  visited  them  and  beheld  them 
with  Is  own  eyes.  Particular  attention  is  paid  to  the  progress  of  Freethought 
in  the  various  countries  he  visited,  and  the  morality  of  so-called  pagan  na- 
tions is  contrasted  with  the  morality  of  Christian  countries,  much  to  the 
detriment  of  the  latter.   The  work  is  a  "Freethinker's  History  of  the  World." 
This  Work  and  "A  TRUTH  SEEKER  IN  EUROPE"  should  be  in  every  Libe- 
ral's library.  Besides  its  intrinsic  worth  it  is  a  memento  of  one  of  the  greatest 
Freethinkers  the  world  has  known— of  one  who  ra»ks  with  Voltaire  and  Paine 
in  the  force  and  cloarnoes  of  his  writings. 

The  World's  Sages,  Thinkers,  and  Reformers.    1,076 

pages,  8vo.  Cloth,  $3.00;  leather,  $4.00;  morocco,  gilt  edges, 
$4.50. 

The  Champions  of  the  Chui'ch;  Their  Crimes  and 
Persecutions.  8vo.  1,119  pages.  Cloth,  $3.00; 
leather,  $4.00  morocco,  gilt  edges,  $4.50. 

The  Grods  and  Religions  of  Ancient  and  Modern  Times 

Two  Volumes.  Written  in  prison.  In  cloth,  $3.00  per  vol- 
ume, or  $5.00  for  the  two  volumes;  in  leather,  $7.00;  in  mo- 
rocco, gilt  edges,  $8.00. 

*^rom  Behind  the  Bars.  A  series  of  letters  -written  in 
prison.     Over  700  pages.     Price,  $1.50. 


mum  SEEKER  co:s  ruBLicATioys.  ^ 

A  Truth  Seeker  in  Europe.    A  series  of  letters  writt«n 

diiring  a  visit  ot  ten  weeks  in  Europe.  Giving  some  account 
of  the  International  Freethinkers'  Congress  held  at  Brussels, 
to  which  Mr.  Bennett  was  a  delegate,  followed  by  a  descrip- 
tion of  what  he  saw  in  England,  France,  Holland,  and  Italy. 
The  letters  from  Eome  alone  are  worth  the  price  of  the  book. 
With  a  steel-plate  portrait  of  the  aiithor.      850  pages.     $1.50. 

The  Semitic  Gods  aud  the  Bible.    Treating  upon  the 

gods  of  the  Semitic  nations,  including  Allah,  Jehovah,  Satan, 
the  Holy  Ghost,  Jesus  Christ,  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  the  Bible. 
To  the  latter  230  pages  are  devoted,  showing  that  book  to  be 
a  very  inferior  production  for  a  first-class  God.  333  large 
pages.     Paper  covers,  60  cents;  cloth,  $1. 

Judaism,  Christianity,  and  Mohammedanism  ex- 
amined historically  and.  critically.  It  is  thought  to  be  the 
most  damaging  exhibit  of  Christianity  that  has  appeared. 
500  large  pages.     Price,  $1.50. 

Thirty  Discussions,  Bible  Stories,  Essays  and  Lec- 
tures.    700  j)ag-es.    Paper  covers,  75  cents;  cloth  $1. 

The  Humphi'ey-Bennett  Discussion.    A  debate  on 

Christianity  and  Infidelity,  between  D.  M.  Bennett  and  Kev. 
G.  H.  HuMi'HEEY.  This  book  has  had  a  very  large  sale,  and 
is  a  splendid  work  for  Freethinkers  to  loan  to  Christian 
neighbors.     550  pages.     Price,  $1. 

Bennett-Teed  Discussion.  Between  D.  M.  Bennett  and 
Cyrus  Romulus  E.  Teed.  Jesus  the  Lord  God  Creator  of  Heaven 
and  Earth.     Paper,  30  cents;  cloth,  50  cents. 

What  Objections  to  Christianity?  A  discussion  be- 
tween D.  M.  Bennett  and  G.  M.  Maie,  divided  into  the  follow- 
ing theses:  1.  Christianity  is  neither  new  nor  original,  being 
borrowed  or  copied  from  much  older  systems  of  religion,  (a) 
The  belief  in  an  offspring  being  begotten  by  a  god  upon  a  hu- 
man virgin  is  nearly  a  thousand  years  older  than  the  mythical 
story  of  Jesus  and  his  virgin  mother.  (6)  Other  so-called  sa- 
viors and  redeemers  have  been  believed  in  and  reported  to  have 
been  crucified  and  to  have  died  on  the  cross  many  hundreds 
of  years  before  the  same  was  said  of  Jesus,  (c)  There  is  not 
a  dogma,  rite,  sacrament,  or  ceremony  in  Christianity  that  did 
not  exist  in  pagan  systems  from  five  hundred  to  two  thousand 
years  before  Christianity  was  known  in  the  world. 

2.  Miracles  and  supernatural  achievements  have  been  as 
fully  and  tnily  ascribed  to  other  teachers  and  founders  of  re- 
ligion as  to  Jesus. 

3.  The  story  of"  Jesus  and  his  mission  in  the  world  is  unhis- 
torical;  it  is  not  corroborated  by  contemporaneous  history. 

Bennett  affirms ;  Maik  denies.  This  is  an  exhaustive  dia- 
•nsgion.     Price,  $1.50. 


WORKS   BY  J.  E.  REMSBURG. 

False  CLiiniS.     Kevised  and  Enlarged.    As  a  Missionary 

Document  it  is  unexcelled.  Among  the  sub.  ects  considered 
by  Mr.  Kemsburg  are:  The  Church" and  Morality;  Criminal 
Statistics,  showing  the  creeds  of  the  prisoners  in  the  peniten- 
tiaries; the  Church  and  Civilization;  the  Church  and  Sci- 
ence; the  Church  and  Learning;  tlie  Church  and  Liberty; 
the  Church  and  the  Antislavery  Reform;  the  Woman's 
Rights  Movement;  the  Temperance  Reform;  the  Church  and 
the  Republic.     Price,  10  cents  singly ;  75  cents  per  dozen. 

SiWe  Morals.  Twenty  Crimes  and  Vices  Sanctioned  by 
Scripture;  Falsehood  and  Deception;  Cheating;  Theft  and 
Robbery;  Adultery  and  Prostitution ;  Murder;  Wars  of  Con- 
quest and  Extermination;  Despotism;  Intolerance  and  Per- 
secution; Injustice  to  Woman;  Unkindness  to  Children; 
Cruelty  to  Animals ;  Human  Sacrifices;  Cannibalism  ;  Witch- 
craft; Slavery;  Polygamy;  Intemperance;  Poverty  and  Va- 
grancy; Ignorance  and  Idiocy;  Obscenity.  Price,  single 
copies,  25  cents;  6  copies,  fl.  Special  discount  on  larger 
quantities. 

Sabbath-Breaking.  This  is  the  best  and  most  thorough 
work  ever  written  on  the  Sabbath  from  a  rational  point  of 
view.  Large  and  handsome  print.  The  question  is  dis- 
cussed under  the  following  heads:  Origin  of  the  Sabbatic 
Idea;  the  Jewish  Sabbath;  the  Christian  Scriptures  and  the 
Sabbath;  Examination  of  Sunday  Arguments;  Origin  of 
Christian  Sabbath;  Testimony  of  the  Christian  Fathers;  the 
Sabbath  during  the  Middle  Ages;  the  Puritan  Sabbath; 
Testimony  of  Christian  Reformers,  Scholars,  and  Divines; 
Abrogation  of  Sunday  Laws.     Price,  25  cents ;  six  copies,  $1. 

Image  Breaker.  Six  Lectures:  Dechne  of  Faith, 
Protestant  Intolerance,  Washington  an  Unbeliever;  Jefferson 
an  Unbeliever;  Paine  and  Wesley;  Christian  Sabbath. 
Eacli  5  cents  ,■  bound,  paper,  25  cents ;  per  doz.  40  cents. 

Thomas  Paine.  Tells  the  story  of  the  Author-Hero's 
life,  delineates  the  leading  traits  of  his  character  and  genius, 
and  vindicates  his  name  from  the  aspersions  cast  upon  it. 
Choice  extracts  from  '  Common  Sense,"  "  American  Crisis," 
"Rights  of  Man,"  and  '-Age  of  Reason,"  are  given;  also, 
tributes  to  Paine's  character  from  more  than  one  hundred 
noted  persons  of  Europe  and  America,  many  of  them  written 
expressly  for  this  work.  Second  edition,  1(50  pages,  printed 
on  fine  tinted  paper,  uratly  bound,  and  containing  a  hand- 
some steel  portrait  of  Pttine.     Paper,  50  cts;  cloth,  75  cts. 

The   Apostle  of  Liberty.      An   address    delivered  in 
Paine  Hall,  before  the  N.  E.  Freethinkers'  Convention,  Jan- 
uary 29,  1884.     Price,  10  cents. 
For  all  the  above  works  address  THE  TRUTH  SEEKER  CO., 

33  Clinton  Place,  New  York.' 


TRUTH  SEEKER  CO:S  PURLICATIOKS. 


PAINE'S  ^VORKS. 
Paine's  Theological  Works,  including  The  Age  of 

Keason,  Examination  of  Prophecies,  Letter  to  the  Bishop  of 
Llandaif,  Reply  to  Mr.  Erskine,  Letter  to  Camille  Jordan,  etc., 
etc.,  with  a  life  of  Paine  and  a  steel-plate  portrait.  12mo. 
In  paper  covers,  $1;  cloth,  $1.50. 

Paine's  Oreat  Works  (complete)  in  one  volume.  Cloth, 

$3.00;  leather,  $4.00;  morocco,  $4.50. 

Paine's  Political  Works,  including  Common  Sense, 
The  Crisis,  and  Eights  of  Man.     Cloth,  $1.50. 

The  Age  of  Reason.  An  investigation  of  true  and  fabu- 
lous theology.  Without  a  peer  in  the  world.  Paper,  25  cents, 
or  5  for  $1.     Cloth,  50  cents. 

The  Age  of  Reason  and  An  Examination  of  the 
Prophecies.     Paper,  40  cents;  Cloth,  75  cents. 

Common  Sense.     Paine's  first  work.     15  cents. 

The  Crisis.    Containing  numbers  fi'om  I.  to  XVI.  inclu-- 

sive.     Paper,  40  cents;  cloth,  75  cents. 

The  Rights  of  Man.     For  the  oppressed  of  humanity. 

Paper,  40;  cloth,  75  cents. 

Paine's  Life,  with  Remarks  on  Comte  and  Rousseau. 
By  Calvin  Blanchaed.    Paper,  50  cents;  cloth,  75  cents. 


B.    F.    UNDERWOOD'S    NVORKS. 

Essays  and  Lectures.  Embracing  Influence  of  Chris- 
tianity on  Civilization ;  Christianity  and  Materialism ;  What  Lib- 
eralism offers  in  Place  of  Christianity;  Scientific  Materialism; 
Woman;  Spiritualism  from  a  Materialistic  Standpoint;  Paine 
the  Political  and  Religious  Reformer;  Materialism  and  Crime; 
Will  the  Coming  Man  Worship  God?  Crimes  and  Cruelties  ol 
Christianity;  the  Authority  of  the  Bible;  Freethought  Judged 
by  its  Fruits;  Our  Ideas  of  God.  300  pp.,  paper,  60  cents; 
cloth,  $1. 

Influence  of  Christianity  upon  Cirilization.   25  cents. 
Christianity  and  Materialism.     15  cents. 


g  TRUTH  SEEKER  CO:S  PUBLICATIONS. 

What  Liberalism  Offers  in  Place  of  Christianity. 

10  cents. 

Scientific  Materialism:  Its  Meaning  and  Tendency. 

10  cents. 

Spii'itualism  from  a  Materialistic  Standpoint.    10 

cents. 

Paine  the  Political  and  Religious  Reformer.  10  cents. 

Woman:   Her  Past  and  Present:   Her  Rights  and 

Wrongs.     10  cents. 

Materialism  and  Crime.    10  cents. 
Will  the  Coming  Man  Worship  God?    10  cents. 
Crimes  and  Cruelties  of  Christianity.    10  cents. 
Twelye  Tracts.     Scientific  and  Theological.     20  cents. 
Burgess-Underwood  Debate.    A  four  day's  debate  be^ 

tween  B.  F.  Underwood  and  Pkof.  O.  A,  Buegess,  President 
of  the  Northwestern  Christian  University,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Accurately  reported.    188  pp.   Paper,  50  cents;  cloth,  80  cents. 

Underwood-Marples  Debate.    A  four  nights'  debate 

between  B.  F.  Undeewood  and  Rev.  John  Maeples.  Fully 
reported.     Paper,  35  cents;  cloth,  60  cents. 


MISCELLANEOUS 

Freethought  Works  Published  by  D.  M.  Bennett. 

A  Business  Man's  Social  and  Religious  Tiews.    Bold 

and  trenchant  blows  againsts  theology  and  inhumanity.     $1. 

Advancement  of  Science.     The  Inaugural  Address  of 

Prof.  John  Tyndall  delivered  before  the  British  Association 
for  the  Advancement  of  Science.  With  Portrait  and  Biograph- 
ical sketch.  Also  containing  opinions  of  Prof.  H.  Helm- 
HOLTZ  and  articles  of  Prof.  Tyndatj,  and  Sir  Henet  Thompson 
on  prayer.  Price,  cloth,  50  cents;  paper,  25  cents.  Inaugural 
Address  alone,  in  paper,  10  cents. 

Alamontada  the  Galley-Slave.    Translated  from  the 

German  of  Zschokke  by  Iea  G.  Moshkk,  L.L.B.  A  da^ly 
philosophical  narrative,  intensely  interesting.  Prioe,  oloth, 
75  cents;  paper,  60  oenta. 


TRUm  SEEKER  CO.'S  PUBLICATIOKS.  ? 

Amberley's  Life  of  Jesus.    His  character  and  doctrins. 

From  the  Analysis  of  Keligious  Belief.  By  Viscount  Amber- 
let.     Paper,  35  cents;  cloth,  60  cents. 

Beyond  the  Yeil.  Claimed  to  be  dictated  by  the  spirit 
of  Paschal  Beverly  Eandolph,  aided  by  Emanuel  Swedenborg, 
through  the  mediumship  of  Mrs.  Frances  H.  McDougall  and 
Mrs.  Lttna  Hutchinson,  with  a  steel  engraving  of  Eandolph. 
$1.50 

Blakenian's  200  Poetical  Riddles.    20  cents. 
Career  of  Religious  Ideas;  Their  Ultimate  the  Eeligion 

of  Science.  By  Hudson  Tuttle.  Paper,  50  cents;  cloth,  75 
cents. 

Chronicles  of  Simon  Christianus.     His  manifold  and 

wonderful  adventures  in  the  Land  of  Cosmos.  A  new  scrip- 
ture (evidently  inspired)  discovered  by  I.  N.  Fidel.  From 
the  English.     Very  rich.     25  cents. 

Crimes  of  Preachers  in  the  United  States.     By  M.  E. 

Billings.  Shows  how  thick  and  fast  the  godly  have  fallen  from 
grace.     Price,  25  cents. 

Deity  Analyzed  and  the  Devil's  Defense.    In  Six 

.  Lectures  by  Col.  John  K.  Kelso,  A.M.  These  are  among  the 
ablest  lectures  ever  delivered,  and  should  be  read  by  every- 
body.    Price,  $1.50. 

Ecce  Diaholus;  or,  The  Worship  of  Yahveh  or  Jeho- 
vah shown  to  be  the  Worship  of  the  Devil,  with 
observations  on  the  horrible  and  cruel  ordinance  of  Devil 
Worship,  to  wit.  Bloody  Sacrifices  and  Burnt  Offerings.  By 
the  Very  Eev.  Evan  Davies  (Myfyr  Morganwg),  D.D.,  L.L.D., 
Arch-Druid  of  Great  Britain.  Translated  from  the  Welsh  by 
Morion,  B.  C.     Price,  25  cents. 

Eight  Scientific  Tracts.    20  cents. 

Gottlieb:  His  Life.     A  Komance  of  earth,  heaven,  and 

hell.     Beautifully  written,  by  S.  P.  Putnam.     25  cents. 

Hereafter.  A  scientific,  phenomenal,  and  biblical  dem- 
onstration of  a  future  life.  By  D.  W.  Hull.  Paper,  50  cents; 
cloth,  75  cents. 

Issues  of  the  Age.  Consequences  involved  in  modern 
thought.  A  work  showing  much  study  and  great  familiarity 
with  other  writers  and  thinkers.  By  JKenb^  C.  Pbdpkb. 
Price  $1. 


•S  TRUTH  SEEKER  CO:S  PUBLICATION'S. 

Jesus   Christ.     His  life,  miracles,  deity,  teachings,  and 

imperfections.     By  "W.  S.  Bell.     25  cents. 

John's  Way.  A  pleasing  domestic  Eadical  story.  By 
By  Mes.  E.  D.  Slenkee.     15  cents. 

last  Will  and  Testament  of  Jean  Meslier,  a  curate  of 

a  Koman  church  in  France,  containing  the  best  of  his  writings. 
25  cents. 

Nathaniel  Taughan.  A  radical  novel  of  marked  abil- 
ity. By  Feedeeika  Macdonald.  404  pages.  Price  reduced 
to  $1.25. 

Nature's  Revelations  of  Character;  or  Physiognomy 
Illustrated.  The  science  of  individual  traits  por- 
trayed by  the  temperaments  and  features.  Illustrated  by  260 
woodcuts.  By  Joseph  SiMMs,  M.D.  650  pages,  8vo.  Cloth, 
$3.00;  leather,  $4.00;  morocco,  gilt  edges,  $4.50. 

New  England  and  the  People  up  There.    A  humorous 

Lecture.     By  Geoege  E.  Macdonald.     10  cents. 

Outline  of  the  French  Revolution:  Its  Causes  and 
Results.  A  clear  and  comprehensive  portrayal  of 
this  interesting  portion  of  human  history.  By  W.  S.  Bell. 
25  cents. 

Outlines  of  Phrenology.    By  F.  E.  Aspinwall,  M.D. 

Most  acceptable  to  Liberals  of  anything  of  the  kind  published. 
Paper,  50  cents;  cloth,  75  cents. 

Pocket  Theology.  By  Voltaire.  Comprising  terse,  wit- 
ty, and  sarcastic  definitions  of  the  terms  used  in  theology. 
The  only  edition  in  English.     25  cents. 

Proceedings  and  Adresses  at  the  Watkins  Conven- 
tion. 400  pages  of  excellent  Speeches  and  Essays. 
Price  reduced  to  $1.00. 

Pyi*.amid  of  Oizeh.     The  Eelation  of  Ancient  Egyptian 

Civilization  to  the  Jlebrew  Narrative  in  Genesis  and  Exodus 
and  the  Kelative  Claims  of  Moses  and  the  Pyramid  to  Inspira- 
tion Considered.  By  Van  BuEEN  Denslow,  L.L.D.  Price,  25 
cents. 

Religion  Not  History.  An  able  examination  of  the 
Morals  and  Theology  o*f  the  New  Testament.  By  Prof.  F.  W. 
Newman,  of  the  London  University.     25  cents. 


mUTn  SEEKER  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS.  f. 

Resurrection  of  Jesus.    Showing  the  contradictions  and 

doubts  in  whicli  the  subject  is  involved.  By  W.  S.  Bell.  Re- 
vised edition.     25  cents. 

-RCTelations  of  Antichrist.  An  exhaustive  work  proving 
jonclusively  that  no  such  person  as  Jesus  Christ  existed  in  the 
reign  of  Tiberius,  but  that  a  Jesus,  the  son  of  Mary,  was  stoned 
and  hanged  about  a  century  before,  and  that  his  disciples, 
Simon  Kepha,  alias  Peter,  and  the  apostle  Paul,  both  lived 
and  died  before  the  Christian  era.  446  pages  and  full  index. 
Price,  $2.00. 

Seplier  Toldoth  Jesliu;  or,  the  Book  of  the  Generation 

of  Jesus.  1  irst  translation  into  English  of  a  remarkable  He- 
brew document,  giving  the  original  from  which  the  story  of 
Jgsus  was  made  up.     20  cents. 

Sixteen  Saviors  or  None.     By  Keksey  Graves,  author 

of  the  World's  Sixteen  Crucified  Saviors;  The  Bibles  of  Bibles, 
and  Biography  of  Satan.     Paper,  75  cents;  cloth,  $1. 

Six  Lectures  on  Astronomy.  By  Prof.  R.  A.  Proctor. 
20  cents. 

Socialism:  Reply  to  Prof.   Roswell  D.  Hitchcock. 

The  Professor's  sophistries  fully  exposed.  Paper,  25  cents; 
eloth,  50  cen  s. 

Superstition ;  The  Religion  of  BeUeve  or  be  Damned, 
an  Open  Letter  to  the  St.  John's  School  Board.  By  M.  Bab- 
cock.     25  cents. 

The  Adventures  of  Elder  Triptolemus  Tub.  Contain- 
ing startling  and  interesting  disclosures  about  hell,  its  locality, 
magnitude,  climate,  employments,  etc.  By  the  Eev.  Geo. 
Rogers.     15  cents. 

The  Anonymous  Hypothesis  of  Creation.    A  Brief 

Review  of  the  so-called!^  Mosaic  Account.  By  James  J.  Ftteniss. 
Cloth,  50  cents. 

The  Besant-Hatchard  Debate.    A  two-nights'  Debate 

between  Mks.  Annie  Bbsant  and  Eev.  A.  Hatchakd  on  The 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  a  Hist6rical  Character,  and  The  Influence 
of  Christianitj'  on  the  World.  Held  at  the  Hall  of  Science, 
London,  December,  1880.     25  cents. 

The  Brain  and  the  Bible.    By  Edgar  C.  Beall.    With 

a  Preface  by  Robeet  G.  Ingeesoll,  who  says  of  it:  "  This  book, 
written  by  a  brave  and  honest  man,  is  filled  with  brave  and 
honest  thoughts.  The  arguments  it  presents  cannot  be  an- 
swered by  all  the  theologians  in  the  world."  Price  reduced  to 
$1.00. 


Id  TRUTH  SEEKER  CO:S  PVBLICATlOi^S. 

The  Clergyman's  Yictims.    A  Kadical  story  vividly 

portraying  the  wrongs  committed  by  the  professed  men  of 
God.     By  Mrs.  J.  E.  Ball.     25  cents. 

The  Creed  of  Cristeiidom.  Its  foundation  contrasted 
with  its  siaperstructure.  By  W.  Rathbone  Gbeg.  One  of  the 
clearest  and  ablest  works  ever  written.     Price  $1.50. 

The  Contrast:  Evangelicalism  and  Spiritualism  Com- 
pared.    By  Moses  Hull.     Paper,  60  cents;  cloth,  $1, 

The  Darwins.  A  domestic  Kadical  story.  By  Mrs, 
Elmina  Deake  Slenkek,  author  of  John's  Way,  Studying  the 
Bible,  and  numerous  essays.  257  pp.  Paper,  50  cents;  cloth, 
75  cents. 

The  Essence  of  Religion.     From  the  German  of  L. 

Feuekbach.  Author  of  the  Essence  of  Christianity,  etc.  Price, 
in  cloth,  reduced  to  50  cents. 

The  Ghost  of  St  Johns.    By  M.  Babcock.    25  cents. 
The  Godly  Women  of  the  Bible.    A  History  of  all  the 

women  who  figure  in  the  Bible.  Sharp  and  telling  in  style. 
Paper,  50  cents;  cloth,  75  cents. 

The  Heathens  of  the  Heath.  A  finely  written  Kadical 
romance.  By  Wm.  McDonnell,  author  of  Exeter  Hall,  Family 
Creeds,  Day  of  Rest,  etc.  500  pages.  Price  reduced.  Paper, 
80  cents;  cloth,  $1.25. 

The  Holy  Bihle  Abridged.  Containing  the  choice 
passages  and  lovely  morceaus  particularly  pleasing  to  Com- 
STOCK.     169  pages.     Paper,  30  cents;  eloth,  50  cents. 

The  Jamieson-Ditzler  Debate.  A  nine-days'  debate  on 
God,  the  Bible,  Chi'istianity,  and  Liberalism.  Between  Wm. 
F.  Jamieson  and  Kev.  Jacob  Ditzlek,  D.D.  Paper,  50  cents; 
cloth,  75  cents. 

The  Legends  of  tlie  Patriarchs  and  Prophets.    By  S. 

Baring-Gould.  $1.50.  The  Cbngry-ega/ionaiisi,  in  speaking  of  it, 
says:  "There  are  few  Bible  readers  who  have  not  at  some 
time  wished  for  just  such  a  volume.  It  is  a  thoroughly  in- 
teresting book,  and  will  be  seized  with  avidity  by  all  students 
of  the  Bible. 

The  Martyrdom  of  Man.  Embracing  the  four  divisions 
of  War,  Ileligion,  Liberty,  and  Intellect.  A  work  of  rare 
merit,  and  written  in  superior  style.  By  Winwood  Reads- 
New  edition.     544  pages.     Price  reduced  from  $3  to  $1.75. 


TRUTH  SEEKER  CO.'S  PUBLICATION'S.  11 

The  New  Dispensation;  or,  the  Heavenly  Kingdom.  By 
D.  W.  Hull.     25  cents. 

The  Old  Faith  and  the  New.    A  confession.    By  David 

Friederich  Strauss,  Author  of  the  "New  Life  of  Jesus,"  etc. 
Authorized  translation  from  the  sixth  German  edition.  By 
Mathilde  Blind.  Two  volumes  in  one.  The  translation  revised 
and  partly  rewritten,  and  j^receded  by  an  American  version 
of  the  author's  "Prefatory  Postscript."  Strauss  is  too  well 
known  by  the  readers  of  America  to  require  a  single  word  to 
be  said  in  his  praise.     Price,  $1.50. 

The  Outcast.  A  deep,  finely-written  Eadical  story. 
From  the  London  edition.  By  Winwood  Eeade,  author  of 
Martyrdom  of  Man.     30  cents. 

The  Philosophy  of  Spiritualism,  and  the  Philosophy 

and  Treatment  of  Mediomania.  By  Fkedeeic  K.  Makvin,  M 
D.     Cloth,  50  cents. 

The  Pro  and  Con  of  Supernatural  Religion.    Both 

sides  fairly  and  ably  presented.  By  E.  E.  Guild,  ex-Univer- 
salist  clergyman.     Paper,  30  cents;  cloth,  50  cents. 

The  (Question  Settled.  A  careful  comparison  of  Bibli- 
cal modern  Spiritualism.  By  Moses  Hull.  Cloth  $1;  paper  60g. 

The  Radical  Pulpit.  Comprising  discourses  of  advanced 
thought  by  O.  B.  Ffothingham  and  Felix  Adlek,  two  of 
America's  clearest  thinkers.  By  O.  B.  Fevwhingham  :  The  New 
Song  of  Christmas,  The  Departed  Years,  Life  as  a  Test  of 
Creed,  Apocryphal  Books  of  the  New  Testament,  The  Sectarian 
Spirit,  The  American  Gentleman,  The  Language  of  the  Old 
Testament,  The  Dogma  of  Hell,  The  Value  of  the  Higher  Sen- 
timents, The  American  Ladj',  The  Consolations  of  Rationalism. 
By  Felix  Adlee:  The  Ethics  of  the  Social  Question,  Emanci- 
pation, Lecture  at  the  Second  Anniversary  of  the  Society  for 
Ethical  Culture,  Our  I;eaders,  Have  We  Still  a  Religion?  Con- 
science.    Price,  in  cloth,  $1.00 

The  Roaring  lion  on  the  Track.    By  M.  Babcock. 

15  cents. 

iThe  Real  Blasphemers.    By  Col  John  E.  Kelso,  A.M. 

Price,  50  cents. 

The  Truth  Seeker  Collection  of  Forms,  Hymns,  and 

Recitations.  Containing  forms  for  organizing  so- 
cieties, marriage,  funeral  services,  naming  of  infants,  obituary 
notices,  epitaphs,  etc.  Also  525  Liberal  and  Spiritualistic 
Hymns  for  public  meetings,  funerals,  social  gatherings,  etc. 
To  which  are  added  beautiful  Recitations  for  various  publio 
occasions.     550  pp.     Cloth,  75  cents. 


12  TRUTH  SEEKER  CO:S  PUBLICATIONS. 

Truth  Seeker  Tracts.  Bound  in  Yolumes  of  525  pages 
each— Vols.  I.,  II.,  III.,  IV.,  and  V.  Each  volume  containing 525 
pages — thirty  tracts  or  more.  A  Library  within  themsulves 
of  most  excellent  Eadical  reading  matter  at  a  low  jorice.  Paper, 
60  cents  per  vohime;  cloth,  $1.00.  If  the  whole  set  are  taken 
—-paper,  50  cents;  cloth,  75  cents  each. 

The  Truth  Seeker  in  bound  volumes.    Vol  I.,  25  cents; 

volume  II.,  50 cents;  volumes  III.  and  IV.,  $2  each;  volumes  V., 
VI.,  VII.,  VIII.,  and  IX.,  $3  each.  The  whole  set  by  express 
for  $15.00. 

Yoltaire  in  Exile.     Translated  from  the  French  of  M. 

Gastineau  by  his  son  Edmond  Gastineau.  Being  Memoirs  of 
the  life  of  the  great  writer  never  before  published.  Paper,  75 
cents.     Cloth,  $1. 

Why  Don't  God  Kill  the  Devil?    A  Series  of  Essays 

dedicated  to  the  St.  Johns  School  Board.  By  M.  Babcock. 
25  cents. 

Which:  Spiritualism  or  Christianity?    A  discussion 

between  Moses  Hull  and  Kev.  W.  F.  Pakkee.  Paper,  50  cents; 
cloth,  75  cents. 


THE  HOLY  CROSS  SERIES.— ANTI- 
PAPAL. 

Auricular    Confession,    and    Nunneries.     By  Wm. 

HoGAN.     Paper,  50  cents;  cloth,  75  cents. 

Maria  Monk:  the  Mysteries  of  a  Convent;  or,  Monks 

and  their  Maidens.     Paper,  50  cents;  cloth,  75  cents. 

Priestly  Celibacy  Exposed.    A  fuU  disclosure  of  foul 

priestly  practices.     15  cents. 
Sister  Lucy  and  her  Awful  Disclosvires.   10  cents. 

The  Mother  of  Harlots;  or,  Popery  Dissected.     Paper, 

f    cents;  cloth,  75  cents. 

The  Popes  and  their  Doings ;  or,  an  Account  of  the 

Vicars  of  Christ  and   the   Vicegerents  of  God.      Paper,   50 
cents;  cloth,  75  cents. 

The  Priest  in  Absolution.    An  abstract  and  criticism 

of  the  large  work  by  that  name.     Price  25  cents. 


INGERSOLL'S   WORKS. 

[Sold  Wholesale  and  Retail  at  The  Truth  Seeker  Office"^ 

The  GrOds.  Paper,  50  cents;  cloth,  $1  25.  In  five  lec- 
tures, comprising,  "The  Gods,"  "Humboldt,"  "Thomas  Paine," 
"Individuality,"  and  "Heretics  and  Heresies." 

The  Ghosts.  Paper,  50  cents;  cloth,  $1.25.  Including, 
"Liberty  for  Man,  Woman,  and  Child;"  "The  Declaration  of 
Independence,"  "About  Farming  in  Illinois;"  'The  Grant 
Banquet,"  "The  Rev.  Alexander  Clarke,"  "The  Past  Rises  be- 
fore Me  Like  a  Dream,"  and  "A  Tribute  to  Ebon  C.  Ingersoll." 

Some  Mistakes  of  Moses.  Its  chapters  are  :  Some 
Mistakes  of  Moses,  Free  Schools,  The  Politicians,  Man  and 
Woman,  The  Pentateuch,  Monday,  Tuesday,  Wednesday, 
Thursday,  He  Made  the  Stars  Also,  Friday,  Saturday,  Let  us 
Make  Man,  Sunday,  The  Necessity  for  a  Good  Memory,  The 
Garden.  The  Fall,  Dampness,  Bacchus  and  Babel,  Faith  in 
Filth,  The  Hebrews,  The  Plagues,  The  Flight,  Confess  and 
Avoid,  Inspired  Slavery,  Inspired  Marriage,  Inspired  War, 
Inspired  Religious  Liberty,  Conclusion.  Paper,  50  cents; 
cloth,  $1.25. 

The  Christian  Religion.     By  R.  G.  Ingersoll,  Judge 

Jeremiah  S.  Black,  and  Prof.  George  P.  Fisher.  This  is  a 
series  of  articles  which  appeared  in  the  North  American  Review, 
and  excited  great  interest  from  the  high  position  of  the  au- 
thors. Judge  Black  refused  to  answer  Mr.  IngersoU's  second 
paper  and  the  services  of  Mr.  Fisher  were  obtained.  Paper, 
50  cents  ;  cloth,  Sl.OOL 

Interviews  on  Talmage.  Being  Six  Interviews  with 
the  Famous  Orator  on  Six  Sermons  by  the  Rev.  T.  DeWitt 
Talmage,  of  Brooklyn,  to  which  is  added  "A  Talmagian  Cate- 
chism." Stenographically  reported  by  I.  Newton  Bakek. 
Printed  in  bold,  clear  tyjDe,  on  heavy,  tinted  paper,  and  hand- 
somely bound  in  muslin,  with  heavy  boards,  beveled  edges, 
gilt  top.  Octavo,  443  pages,  $2.00.  Paper,  50  cts:  plain  cloth, 
$1.25. 

What  Must  We  Do  to  he  Saved?    In  this  pamphlet 

Mr.  -Ingersoll  analyzes  the  so-called  gosjjels  of  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  and  devotes  a  chapter  each  to  the 
Catholics,  the  Episcopalians,  the  Methodists,  the  Presbyte- 
rians, the  Evangelical  Alliance,  and  answers  the  question  of 
the  Christians  as  to  what  he  proposes  instead  of  Christianity, 
the  religion  of  sv/ord  and  flame.     Paper,  25  cents. 

Prose  Poems  and  Selections.    Cloth,  gilt  back  and 

side,  $2.50. 
ADDRESS  ON  CIVIL  EIGHTS  BILL.     Paper,  15  cents. 
ORTHODOXY.     56  pages,  paper,  10  cents.     $1  00  per  doz<  j. 


THE  TRUTH  SEEKER, 

Founded  by  D.  M.  Bennett. 

THE  LEADING  FREETHOUGHT  JOURNAL  OF 
THE  WORLD. 

LARGEST,  CHEAPEST,  AND  BEST, 


PUBLISHED   EVERY   SATURDAY   AT    $3.00  PER 
YEAR ;    $1.50  FOR  SIX  MONTHS. 

SAMPLE    COPIES    FREE. 
33   CLINTON  PLACE,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

Among  the  reforms  The  Teuth  Seeker  alms  to  effect  are: 
Total  separation  of  church  ami  state,  including  the  equitable  taxation 
of  church  property:  secularization  of  the  public  schools,  abolition  of  Sun- 
day laws,  abolition  of  chaplaincies,  prohibition  of  public  appropriations 
for  religious  purposes,  and  all  other  measures  necessary  to  the  same 
general  end.  _ 

Its  sixteen  l^rge  pages  are  filled  every  week  with  scientific,  philo- 
Bophic,  and  Freethought  articles  and  communioattons  by  the  ablest  Free- 
thinkers in  the  country.  It  givs  all  the  Liberal  news  and  keeps  Its 
readers  posted  on  current  secular  and  theological  events.  It  Is  the  armory 
from  which  hundreds  draw  their  weapons  in  contests  with  priesthood. 
All  the  Liberal  papers  are  good,  but  The  Truth  Seeker  is  THE  BEST 
AND  LARGEST.  ■  Tt, is  conducted  in  a  broad  and  truly  Liberal  spirit,  and 
givs  everyone  a  hearijigf  upon  all  subjects  pertaialng  to  the  welfare  of  the 
human  race.  '  ■'  .•  r.  ^  .   ii 

OPINIONS   §EGARC>rNG  TT. 

A  paper  like  The  Truth  Seeker  is  something  more  and  better  than 
an  advocate  of  truth.  Through  it  its  subscribers  touch  elbows  with  each 
other.  Each  reader  knows  that  he  is  one  of  a  goodly  company  who  find 
comfort  and  inspiration  In  its  pages.  If  they  should  meet  each  other  ihey 
would  feel  like  brothers  and  sisters.  They  hav  lived  under  one  intellect- 
ual roof,  felt  the  glow  of  the  same  fireside,  and  broken  together  the 
bread  of  life.  Such  a  paper  is  to  thousands  a  substitute  for  the  church.— 
George  Chainey,  in  This  World. 

The  Truth  Seeker,  founded  by  D.  M.  Bennett,  is  to-day  perhaps  the 
strongest  foe  with  which  superstition  has  to  contend,  and  a  long  future  of 
great  usefulness  is,  we  trust  and  believe,  before  it.— WinsUii,  Conn,,  Press. 

There  ought  to  be  five  hundred  subscribers  to  The  Truth  Seeker  in 
this  county,  just  to  rebuke  the  Infamous  church  bigots  who  are  using  force 
and  fraud  to  suppress  Ijii>era.iisra.—  Worthington,  Minn.,  Advance. 

This  sterling  and  widely-circulated  Freethought  journal  has  won  its 
way  deep  into  the  hearts  of  its  readers.  The  Truth  Seeker  is  a  great 
paper  and  deserves  the  most  generous  support  of  the  Liberal  public.  The 
recent  numbers  received  are  splendid  in  every  respect. — San  Francisco 
Universe. 

The  truth  Seeker  has  gathered  Its  resources,  and  will  be  a  stronger, 
better,  and  brighter  paper  than  ever. — Liberal  League  Man. 

The  Truth  Seeker  has  become  a  necessity  to  the  Liberal  cause. — Kan- 
tas  Blade. 

Address  The   Tbuth    Seeker, 

33  Clinton  Place,  New  York  City. 


"^hotomount 

Pamphlet 

Binder 

Gaylord  Bros.,  Inc. 

Makers 
Syracuse,  N.  Y, 

PAT.  JAN  21,  1908 


